Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Annihilation

John 3:16 - perish (ap-ol'-loo-mee in the original Greek)

Used 92 times in the New Testament. Translated in the KJV as:
perish 33
destroy 26
lose 22
be lost 5
lost 4
misc 2 (?????)

As it pertains to one who has not been destroyed (lose, be lost, lost):

Matthew 10:39; 16:25; 18:11
Luke 9:24; 15:4, 6, 8, 9, 24 & 32; 17:33
2 Corinthians 4:3

Is it in keeping with Romans 6:23?

Romans 6:23 - death (than'-at-os)

Strong's:
1) the death of the body

a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended

b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell

1) the power of death

c) since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin

2) metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,

a) the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell

3) the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell

4) in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

It seems that "eternal misery" fits with Romans 6:23. Do you agree?
 
kwag_myers said:
Is it in keeping with Romans 6:23?

Romans 6:23 - death (than'-at-os)

Strong's:
1) the death of the body

a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended

b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell

1) the power of death

c) since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin

2) metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,

a) the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell

3) the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell

4) in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

It seems that "eternal misery" fits with Romans 6:23. Do you agree?

Sounds like Strong's has been superimposing preconceived notions in the text. It is complete assumption that 'death' here is speaking of 'the body' and the separation of the 'soul' from the body. Nowhere is this taught in the Bible and it disagrees with the Hebrew OT mindset that man was a wholistic being and not a dualistic.

It sounds like you take an ambiguous interpretation of 'perish' in John 3:16 and then use that to explain Romans 6:23. 'apollumi' which is used in John 3:16 can mean 'to loose, and to destroy'. Both meanings do not mean 'eternal conscious torment'.

'thanatos' is used to mean 'cease to exist' which is what death is. It is eseigesis to try and say that this 'is talking about the body'.

No it is not.

You sin...you die. You choose Christ, you live. It's a very simple equation.

If the souls survived the body at death, there would be no contrast between the wicked and the righteous. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is not the death of the body but eternal life for the soul, BUT the gift of God is eternal life of the soul'

That would make no sense whatsoever. Instead we see that eternal life (that immortality of the soul, if you will explain it that way) is a gift solely for those who choose God (see also John 3:16). The opposite of it is 'death', the reward of the wicked.

In other words, even if you believed that our souls survived death, you CANNOT make that same application to the wicked.

I 'strongly' (pardon the pun) suggest you dump Strongs and get a college curriculum approved, unbiased, just the facts, concordance like Youngs. It lays out the Greek and Hebrew words, each of their meanings and where they are found.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
guibox said:
Christ used their own beliefs against them. If you take all the parables as truth, Christ would have been promoting poor money management in one of the others.
Who says this is a parable? Show me in scripture where it says so.
"Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,..."
 
What Jews did and do believe about the 'eternal soul.'

Contrary to the protestations of those seeking to dismiss orthodox Christian belief regarding the human soul, the Jewish position on the soul is not as they portray:
From Jewish history.com
Let the Jew, rather than the Judaizer, speak:
There are some ideas with which the minds of mankind are so universally imbued throughout every portion of the globe, that we are almost forced to the conclusion, that they are either innate or were made known to the minds of men whilst they were yet one family, or that they are truths, the proofs of which are so self-evident as to be demonstrable by the weakest intellect, as well as by those minds through whose gloom the light of revelation has never penetrated.

The most important of these ideas is the existence of a Creator; the next in importance isâ€â€the immortality of the soul; and as the idea of the latter, cannot I think, be well separated, from that of the former, it will be necessary for its elucidation to examine the nature of the belief of different nations in relation to a supreme first Cause.

It may be said that if the idea of a Creator, or of the soul’s immortality is proved by nature, why is it that the most absurd superstitions reign dominant over the minds of the unenlightened? But an observer of human nature, must acknowledge that the chief misfortunes which the mass of mankind labour under, are generally derived from a sluggishness of thought, that render the many more prone to take things as they find them, rather than to make the effort to examine into their nature and causes. And as it is the nature of mankind to be progressive, whether it be in good or in evil, it happens that if their minds have at first taken a wrong tendency, in a few generations the light of truth if even not annihilated, is scarcely seen to glimmer through the veil of extravagances thrown around it, though it is ready to reclaim its ascendancy at the first favourable moment. If on the other hand, this torpor has been thrown off by some violent effort, they generally rush into the wildest extremes, hastily adopting some visionary theory, and then contort facts to bear them out in their new hypothesis; whereas, were they guided by the pure light of reason, ever ready to give facts a calm consideration, they would find no hidden mysteries to contend with, but would generally arrive at correct deductions.

But it seems that the most dreaded antagonist that true religion has had to contend with, has been what may be termed “an enlightened philosophy;†for whenever and wherever man has attempted to deify his reasoning faculties, considering his unassisted understanding capable of comprehending the whole scale and purposes of nature and of being, he has generally built up such a structure of ridiculous inconsistencies, as would make the most ignorant blush to own. Let us instance the religion of the enlightened Trojans, Greeks and Romans, acknowledging an immortal deity of mortal birth, neither omnipotent, omnipresent, nor omniscient, with two associates, (Pluto and Neptune,) to make up for his want of attributes, and a number of secondary godsâ€â€beings living in the grossest immorality; whilst their exclusive ideas concerning the soul’s immortality, precluding all but the noble and celebrated from receiving rewards and punishments in a future state, place the religion of these enlightened nations (if we exclude the Egyptians,) on a level with those debased tribes that occupy the largest part of Africa yet discovered.

The religion of the negro race consisting of fetish worship, as of “a divinity dwelling in some inanimate body, endowed with intelligence and with, the knowledge of the secret thoughts and actions of his worshippers, with power to do them good or harm,†is as certainly just as worthy an object of worship as the fate-controlled Jupiter, whose power chiefly consisted in discharging thunderbolts forged to his hand, whilst their cruelty exercised at the funerals of their kings and princes, in burying alive a number of their wives and slaves, to furnish the deceased potentates with a suitable retinue to attend them in the other world, was at least, granting them that immortality which was denied to them by the more enlightened and philosophic Greeks. If we now view that part of Asia, where the Grand Lama is worshipped “as a god dwelling amongst men,†we find a belief of his eternal existence, connected with the doctrine of the transmigration or immortality of the soul; as his followers suppose that he merely leaves the body where he took up his temporary abode, and enters another in a supernatural way, changing his form and not his existence. Somewhat resembling in this particular was the Egyptian worship, whose religion is so blended with the idea of the soul’s immortality, that the one cannot exist without the other. We will instance the god Apis, whose soul, the Egyptians supposed had been transferred to an ox, under which form they worshipped him; and their goddess Io or Isis, whose soul after occupying the body of a white heifer, afterwards remained its natural body.

If we extend our researches, we find that some of the ancient nations had ideas of an Eternal Unity, and as a matter of course juster ideas of the human soul. We will first turn to that people where the light of truth shone with the feeblest lustre. The religious belief of the Brahmins consisted in the idea of “the existence of one in all things, and all things existing in one; God in the universe and the universe in God, and nature as the revelation of divine intelligence; divine rest as the perfection of happiness, consisting in the immersion and absorption in the godhead, attained immediately after death by the deserving;†whereas the souls of those who do not obtain this state of rest, transmigrate into different bodies for a farther purgation; the whole period allotted for this, being 4,230,000 years.

The worship of the Persians was of a purer nature, not having entirely lost sight of the great first Cause, but colouring the ideas of a Creator, in the superstitions engendered by a long state of ignorance. “The votaries of Ormuzd, the pure and eternal light and origin of all perfection, would at death pass over the bridge Shinevad into the dwellings of the happy; whilst the slaves of Ahriman (or of evil passions,) would fall into hell, that the spirit of evil would be finally annihilated, the resurrection of the dead to follow, and the earth be renovated and prepared for the abode of the virtuous.†But the religion of the Chinese, in the abstract, approaches nearer to that of the Bible, than any other we have noticed. “The Supreme Deity, the essence of all things, is eternal, invisible, incomprehensible, almighty, merciful, just and beneficent.†But in endeavouring to elucidate these grand ideas, they opened a wide door for superstition to enter in. According to their ideas, he originated from himself; he cannot be represented by any image, neither can he be worshipped, because he is elevated above all worship; but his attributes may be represented by images and worshipped.†Their ideas of the immortality of the soul are also more refined than those noticedâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“he who has done good in this life, will be rewarded after death; and he who has done evil, punished. They there are two distinct places for these two sorts of souls, and to each soul a station is assigned according to its deserts.â€Â

Whilst the learned of the different epochs preceding this, have gone through the greatest labour in collecting information concerning the manners and religious customs of the ancient nations, causing their readers to have a more elevated opinion of their state than they would have arrived at by a casual glance; how plainly have they shown the power that preconceived prejudices exist in warping the judgment of those otherwise of liberal and expansive minds.

The religion of the Hebrews, a recorded emanation of the Supreme Creator, the basis of the Jewish faith, and from which the Mahometan and the Christian have derived their hopes of salvation, has been less understood, less commented upon than the superstitious worship of the most insignificant people; and whilst all have a ready access to the records of the tenets of their faith, and whilst all can make themselves acquainted with the sublime attributes of the God of Israel, they have sat in judgment upon the Supreme, by declaring the statutes He enacted for the government of Israel as debasing in their tendency, by blindly casting away the evidence of the Bible to the contrary, and allowing their imaginations to supply their want of knowledge from the pages of prejudice. It is sufficient to call up a smile of pity in the face of the gravest, to find that whilst the belief of the soul’s immortality was accorded to the most ignorant nation of antiquity, it was denied to the Jews;*â€â€a nation devoid of all superstition, and in frequent converse with the supreme Creator. One of the arguments used in support of this supposition, was that the Bible does not in any part treat of it.

* It is really laughable to call to mind instances of the ignorance of those called well-informed, concerning the Jews and their belief. I recollect not later than the year 1840, reading in a New York paper words to the following effect:â€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“We attended the funeral, yesterday, of the late Rev. I. B. Seixas, and were much pleased and edified with a discourse delivered by the Rev. I. Leeser, Minister of a Jewish Congregation at Philadelphia, in which he painted the Jews’ belief of the immortality of the soul; an idea, which will be quite new to some of our readers, as it has been supposed that the Jews did not believe in a future state.â€Â

In this view of the case they seem to have lost sight of the plan and intention of the Bible; the object of which was to give a correct history of the creation, and of man from the creation until the close of the prophetic missions, as well as the laws by which man should be religiously and civilly governed; and as each was enjoined to make himself familiar with the whole, it was necessary that its style should be extremely laconic. Those things which men at the time of Moses had a knowledge of, it passes over with a mere allusion. For instance, we find in the first chapter of Genesis, that God, by the power of his will, created the heavens and the earth; but Moses makes use of no arguments to prove that God had the power to do so, or to show from whence he derived that power; for the people already knew that He was omnipotent and eternal. Knowing this, it would have been a matter of supererogation to have told them that the breath of life that God breathed into man, through which man became a living soul, was co-eternal with God himself. With their sublime ideas of the Most High, it would have been an anomaly for them to suppose that, that which once appertained to the Creator, could cease to exist.

If we proceed a little farther in the Bible, we find “that Enoch was translated to heaven, without seeing death; not that the knowledge of his being taken to heaven excited any surprise; but merely commented upon, because he was translated bodily. Was Enoch, then, the only favored one? were there no others whom God thought worthy of immortality, save Enoch and Elijah? had the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the friends and favourite servants of the Deity, no knowledge of the important truths which ignorant and base idolaters were in possession of? Knew the heathens more than Moses,â€â€he who conversed with God face to face,â€â€he who was deemed worthy of being the leader and conductor of one nation from the midst of another? Knew these sensual tribes more than the holy prophets that succeeded Moses? No! they all knew that, if at death the sun should no longer be their light by day, and if the moon should give no light unto them by night, God would be their everlasting light, and their God their glory; and if their body should return to the earth, as it was, “their spirit would return to the God that gave it.â€Â

Even if the Bible or the works of the Jewish sages did not treat of the immortality of the soul, ample evidence have we that the ancient Jews believed it, from the fact that the Persians in their creed have adopted, with a little alteration, the ideas which we hold of the resurrection of the dead, no doubt derived from the Jews during or before the reign of queen Esther; and as late researches have shown that a body of Jews have dwelt in China since before the destruction of the temple, we have every probability for asserting that Foe and Confucius were well acquainted with the Hebrews and their Scriptures, and derived from them their ideas of God and the soul’s immortality, from their near resemblance to our creed when divested of the garb of superstition. In regard to the assertion that the modern Jews owe their ideas of immortality to the Christians, it must be remembered that it has always been man’s nature to scorn the oppressor, and to refuse to adopt any ideas forced upon his belief; and when we call up before our imaginations the terrible and countless tortures inflicted upon our helpless race, is it to be supposed that we would have been more ready to adopt this idea than any other tenet of the Christian’s faith? On the contrary, we are and always have been too well satisfied with our belief, either to add to it, or to take aught from it,â€â€too well acquainted with our holy book not to acknowledge that it is a sufficient guide in this world, and a sure guide to the next; and all we ask of others is, that they will not judge us ex parte; satisfied that, if our claims are weighed carefully, and the evidence fairly sifted, we shall hold that distinguished place in the consideration of mankind in which our God has placed us.
Source


Second, shorter stated view
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewish-afterlife-beliefs.htm
The afterlife is a fundamental of Jewish belief.

The creation of man testifies to the eternal life of the soul. The Torah says, "And the Almighty formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the SOUL of life" (Genesis 2:7). On this verse, the Zohar states that "one who blows, blows from within himself," indicating that the soul is actually part of God's essence. Since God's essence is completely spiritual and non-physical, it is impossible that the soul should die.
 
Vic said:
Orthodox Christian said:
guibox said:
Christ used their own beliefs against them. If you take all the parables as truth, Christ would have been promoting poor money management in one of the others.
Who says this is a parable? Show me in scripture where it says so.
"Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,..."
Hi Vic: we were speaking specifically about Lazaros and the Rich Man. (luke 16:19-31)
 
Orthodox Christian said:
Hi Vic: we were speaking specifically about Lazaros and the Rich Man. (luke 16:19-31)

Which is CLEARLY a parable.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
Hi Vic: we were speaking specifically about Lazaros and the Rich Man. (luke 16:19-31)
Hey James... so was I. ;-) It is one of five stories out of one, rather lenghty parable.

Luke 15:4
Luke 15:8
Luke 15:11
Luke 16:1
and
Luke 16:19

Now before anyone says, "Well it doesn't say it's a parable", take a look at Luke 15:8, Luke 15:11 and Luke 16:1. Neither one of them say "parable" either, but we know they are. Unless some of you think The missing silver, The Prodigal Son & The Rich man and his steward are true stories also. :-?

I posted about this in the past.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... man#196627
 
We are getting a little away from annhilation, though ones view on the soul does impact on whether the wicked can burn for eternity or not. Perhaps we should start a new thread. Anyway, I did want to present the other side from what OC posted.

We must understand that regardless of what the pagan nations around the Hebrews, Jews and Christians believed, what we were handed down in the Torah and the NT writings do not support the dualism of man and an immortal soul.

Genesis 2:7: "A Living Soul." The second important Biblical statement for understanding human nature is found in Genesis 2:7. It is not surprising that this text forms the basis of much of the discussion regarding human nature, since it provides the only Biblical account of how God created man. The text reads: "Then God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Historically, this text has been read through the lenses of classical dualism. It has been assumed that the breath of life God breathed into man’s nostrils was simply an immaterial, immortal soul that God implanted into the material body. And just as earthly life began with the implantation of an immortal soul into a physical body, so it ends when the soul departs from the body. Thus Genesis 2:27 has been historically interpreted on the basis of the traditional body-soul dualism.

What has led to this mistaken and misleading interpretation is the fact that the Hebrew word nephesh, translated "soul" in Genesis 2:7, has been understood according to the standard Webster’s definition for soul: "The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life." Or "The spiritual principle embodied in human beings." This standard definition reflects the Platonic view of the soul–psyche as being an immaterial, immortal essence that abides in the body, though it is not part of it.

This prevailing view causes people to read the Old Testament references to the soul–nephesh in the light of Platonic dualism rather than of Biblical wholism. As Claude Tresmontant puts it, "By applying to theHebrew nephesh [soul] the characteristics of the Platonic psyche [soul], . . . we let the real meaning of nephesh [soul] escape us and furthermore, we are left with innumerable pseudo-problems."

People who read the Old Testament references to nephesh (which in the King James version are translated 472 times as "soul") with a dualistic mind-set, will have great difficulty in understanding the Biblical wholistic view of human nature. According to this, the body and the soul are the same person seen from different perspectives. They will experience problems with accepting the Biblical meaning of the "soul" as the animating principle of both human and animal life. Furthermore, they will be at a loss to explain those passages that speak of a dead person as a deadsoul–nephesh (Lev 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:6,11; 9:6, 7, 10; 19:11, 13; Hag 2:13). For them it is inconceivable that an immortal soul could die with the body.

The Meaning of "Living Soul." The prevailing assumption that the human soul is immortal has led many to interpret the phrase "man became a living soul" (Gen 2:7 KJV) to mean that "man obtained a living soul." This interpretation has been challenged by numerous scholars who are sensitive to the confusion regarding the difference between the Greek-dualistic and the Biblical-wholistic conception of human nature.

Audrey Johnson, for example, explains that nephesh–soul in Genesis 2:7 denotes the whole man, with an emphasis on his consciousness and vitality.9 Similarly, Johannes Pedersen speaking of the creation of man in his classic study Israel, writes: "The basis of his essence was the fragile corporeal substance, but by the breath of God it was transformed and became a nephesh, a soul. It is not said that man was supplied with a nephesh, and so the relation between body and soul is quite different from what it is to us. Such as he is, man in his total essence is a soul."

- Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi "Immortality or Resurrection?"
 
I was on net again and came upon this article in regards to eternal punishment and the Preterist view, it seems more solid then my last post on the word eternal in Mt. 25:46 and elsewhere.
Beza


At first: I'm not an annihilationist but I don't think the phrase "eternal conscious punishment" comes from an exhausting exegesis. There are levels between eternal conscious punishment and Annihilationism.

Brother Scott cited Mt. 25.46 on the Covenant Eschatology board, where he has called my attention again to the word everlasting. Although the Concordance said it is eternal, notice the root of this word, Aionios (S166). Do not forget that for the word which we used frequently to proving "it is not the end of the world, it is the end of the age" on Mt. 24.3, translated by Strong also as "for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity ". Preterists use the word "aion" as age, but disapprove this meaning on Aionios. Please explain to me what is the reason for this?

The Greek itself is not meant to be used as "eternal". Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) said: "The period which includes the whole time of one's life is called the aeon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). Aionos is used in Greek as "of or belonging to an age." Nobody say it is not important (to see how the Greek used it) since Peter used the word "Tartaros" which is is the prison of the Titans, or giants (cp. Heb. Rephaim, Ap. 25), who rebelled against Zeus. The problem is, the main meaning of aeon (which is age, time, period) is totally the opposite as eternity.

Aion in any form many times translated as "forever" but look this passage:

Tit. 1.12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway (aei) liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Does it mean that the Cretians are liars forever?

Let us read another example where aionos does not mean eternal:

Rom. 16.25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began (AIONOS)

(NAS) 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past (AIONOS)

If aionos is eternal then the mystery, the gospel, is secret forever!



In same cases “forever†must be applied to the covenant or age:

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15); that is, until it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until--Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

I think the same is true with eternal life. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. A brother claimed that if I deny the everlasting nature for punishment, then I also deny everlasting nature for life. Notice this passage:

Luk. 18.29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world (aion) to come life everlasting.


According to the Preterist viewpoint the “age to come†is the period after AD 70. Believers in Christ receive “everlasting†life now. I don’t suggest here that after our death we will annihilated, simply I don’t know God’s plan. I believe that “he that soweth and he that reapeth “ will rejoice together, but I think nobody know what the afterlife really means.


A few translations on eternal punishment:

Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898

1. And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.
2. and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night-to the ages of the ages.

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition (GreekEnglish Interlinear)

1. And these shall go forth to the aionian cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life.
2. And THAT ENEMY who deceived them was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE and Sulphur, where both the BEAST and FALSE-PROPHET [were cast,] and they will be tormented Day and Night for the AGES of the AGES.

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976

1. And these shall go away into age-abiding *correction, but the righteous into **age-abiding life.
2. And the Adversary that had been deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where were both the wild-beast and the false-prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night unto the ages of ages.


Rotherham's Emphasized : "unto the ages of the ages.:

The second problem, the punishment, Kolasis does not means only punishment but correction as Strong listed:

2851: correction, punishment, penalty

Not all translations use here "punishment". It is obvious if the meaning "correction" is possible, the meaning eternal becomes impossible.

Or see the word "destruction":

2Th. 1.9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Everlasting destruction - you will find "Aionios Olethros". Strong says:

“olethros - for the destruction of the flesh, said of the external ills and troubles by which the lusts of the flesh are subdued and destroyed “ – Have you ever thought about 1Co 5.5:

1Co. 5.5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


I don't want to prove annihilation but I'm simply not sure that punishment is eternal or that destruction is full destruction here. The point is not that conscious punishment exists at all but there can be punishments or torments (basanizo = touchstone) for an age. We have two ages described in our Bibles but who knows what is the real plans of God after our death? Even the Bible speak about more future ages:

Eph. 2.7 That in the ages (aionon) to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

The only word to "eternal" in the NT is aidios referring to God (See Rom. 1.20) . You mention "unquenchable" which does not refer to "eternal" only. The fire on the Temple in AD 70 was unquenchable too but not eternal. (exactly as Josephus wrote)

The problem with Mt. 10:28 is valid although I think Gehenna as both a physical place and a spiritual continuation of punishment seems not too convincing. Why did Jesus use an everyday word to describe as place of the eternal punishment which meaning was never used among Jews? Neither the Old Testament, nor Josephus, nor Philo used "gehenna" as future spiritual judgments of Jews. Second problem that the verse does not say God will kill the souls, "He is able", as He is able to "of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Not to mention, soul (psuche) does not means always the human soul but life (1Jn. 3.16, Heb. 10.39), heart (Col. 3.23) or mind (Heb. 12.3,Phi. 1.27). The text uses two Greek words "kill" and "destroy" which can refer to simply "Fear God and not man". A good example on psuche comparing to the meaning of Mt. 10:28:

Act. 14.2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.


But again I have no problems with punishment itself, only the word "everlasting". Despite this, you can be right with eternal - just I'm not sure to declare it as biblical truth.

Regarding Lazarus and the rich I think it is parable, Ed Burley wrote same arguments. See Lazarus (Eleazer) as the believers, the rich man as Jewish (royal) priesthood (notice: fine linen, six brothers), dogs as gentiles (Mk. 7.27) and the great gulf as blindness (Mk. 8.18, 2Co 3.15, Mt. 23.39), Abraham as their Father (Jn. 8.39, Jn. 8.56) - is a perfect Preterist verse and not a literal story. Second problem with this parable as literal story that in this case we must accept a “two-leveled†Hades with conscious punishment which is in contradiction with old-testamental description of Hades:

Ecc. 9.10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Psa. 146.4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Dan. 12.2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

(Also notice that the “everlasting†in Dan. 12.2 – hebrew owlam means not only everlasting but long duration, indefinite also). Too many questions. How thought the rich man that he can escape from Hades to warn his brothers? It is impossible. I don’t want detail the curiosities (finger in water, tongue, seeing another “coastâ€Â, etc) but perhaps it would be good to analyze them better. The phrase “Moses and prophets†clearly signs a pre AD 70 event. After AD 70 it would be “let them hear to Christâ€Â. Hades is entirely destroyed, were cast into the Lake of Fire. I think nobody believe that Hades still functions in Lake of Fire or simply renamed. If the parable is correct I don’t understand why it is impossible to see as AD 70 fulfillment when lot of priests killed but the believers escaped. The priests who remained alive, continue their lives which is not “life†without Christ:

Rev. 3.1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.



Isa. 55.8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Jer. 32.27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?


cheers,
Gabor Gombor (Preterist site)
 
Vic said:
Orthodox Christian said:
Hi Vic: we were speaking specifically about Lazaros and the Rich Man. (luke 16:19-31)
Hey James... so was I. ;-) It is one of five stories out of one, rather lenghty parable.

Luke 15:4
Luke 15:8
Luke 15:11
Luke 16:1
and
Luke 16:19

Now before anyone says, "Well it doesn't say it's a parable", take a look at Luke 15:8, Luke 15:11 and Luke 16:1. Neither one of them say "parable" either, but we know they are. Unless some of you think The missing silver, The Prodigal Son & The Rich man and his steward are true stories also. :-?

I posted about this in the past.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... man#196627
Here's a trivia question: which of those parables that you recount use the proper name of an individual? Hint: there's just one, the climactic one.

But since you mention it, I don't see alot of people arguing that the father's forgiveness of the so-called prodigal is to be understood as 'symbolic.'

One thing I've noticed is how often biblical passages are treated with "God did not really say."

"This is my body"
"This is my blood"
"The righteous to eternal life, the wicked to eternal punishment"
Lazarus in the torments of Hades
"tell it to the Church"
etc,etc,etc.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
... Here's a trivia question: which of those parables that you recount use the proper name of an individual? Hint: there's just one, the climactic one.
James, I know where you are going with this. I just don't "see" the lack of a proper name as a prerequisite.... considering what the name Lazarus means.

But since you mention it, I don't see alot of people arguing that the father's forgiveness of the so-called prodigal is to be understood as 'symbolic.'
Good point, but it is a parable, none the less.

We digress, so I will honor guibox's wishes and allow the thread to continue on topic.
 
Just one more digress, sorry guibox, in regard to Lazarus. For what it's worth, Strong's - sorry again, guibox - Concordance says of the name 'Lazarus': "The name of a person, one real and one IMAGINARY." Okay, carry on.
 
SputnikBoy said:
Just one more digress, sorry guibox, in regard to Lazarus. For what it's worth, Strong's - sorry again, guibox - Concordance says of the name 'Lazarus': "The name of a person, one real and one IMAGINARY." Okay, carry on.
I bet if you look in that same concrdance, you'll see the term 'the Lord's Day' as being defined as the first day of the week-which is something you would argue against. So I think you'd best dispense with the opinions of the writers of concordances on topics other than the technical definitions.

My intent in arguing this point was not to stump for it being a parable or not- but simply to demonstrate, as I have, that certain people seek to parabolize scripture, thinking then they can take liberty with interpretation.

This story is set in the past tense. Jesus is saying that their is consciousness among the dead dating back, therefore, BEFORE even His glorious resurrection. It is ludicrous to suggest that He let one of their alleged myths (the existence of conscious souls apart from the body) enter into His scripture simply to make yet another point He had made over and over.

His 'parables,' if in fact this is one, are not to be viewed as suspect, but understood. Any other suggestion is simply at odds with the reliability of scripture.
 
guibox said:
Sounds like Strong's has been superimposing preconceived notions in the text. It is complete assumption that 'death' here is speaking of 'the body' and the separation of the 'soul' from the body. Nowhere is this taught in the Bible and it disagrees with the Hebrew OT mindset that man was a wholistic being and not a dualistic.
So you don't believe we are three-part beings, body, soul and spirit? That would explain why you don't understand the difference between physical and spiritual. Consider Hebrews 4:12 and tell me how that supports your "wholistic" mindset.

guibox said:
It sounds like you take an ambiguous interpretation of 'perish' in John 3:16 and then use that to explain Romans 6:23. 'apollumi' which is used in John 3:16 can mean 'to loose, and to destroy'. Both meanings do not mean 'eternal conscious torment'.

'thanatos' is used to mean 'cease to exist' which is what death is.

Again, you make a statement without creditable proof. I've based mine on Strongs, which is openly accepted by nearly everyone. Strongs says nothing of "cease to exist", so who is this interpreter of the original Greek who is superior to Strongs? Name you source, otherwise, it's just theory.

guibox said:
It is eseigesis to try and say that this 'is talking about the body'.

No it is not.
Again, you fail to provide substance to your theory. You asked me for specifics, I provided them, and you reject the truth. You can't just change the definition of a word to suit your own purpose. We're all smarter than that and we're not falling for your scheme.

guibox said:
You sin...you die. You choose Christ, you live. It's a very simple equation.

If the souls survived the body at death, there would be no contrast between the wicked and the righteous. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is not the death of the body but eternal life for the soul, BUT the gift of God is eternal life of the soul'

That would make no sense whatsoever. Instead we see that eternal life (that immortality of the soul, if you will explain it that way) is a gift solely for those who choose God (see also John 3:16). The opposite of it is 'death', the reward of the wicked.

In other words, even if you believed that our souls survived death, you CANNOT make that same application to the wicked.
Now you've confused the soul and the spirit. The soul is our mind, will and emotions, and is continually being regenerated by the Word and the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 12:2)

guibox said:
I 'strongly' (pardon the pun) suggest you dump Strongs and get a college curriculum approved, unbiased, just the facts, concordance like Youngs. It lays out the Greek and Hebrew words, each of their meanings and where they are found.

A source!!! Well, let's take a look at Youngs. What are people saying about Youngs?

"I didn't just take his word for this. I bought myself a Young's Concordance, looked up "world" in Mat 24:3 and, sure enough, there it was: 28 entries. "Age, indefinite time, dispensation, aion." I was content with this knowledge and with my Young's Concordance for as long as the Lord wanted me to remain content which was for three years of my college career.

But eventually, I noticed repeatedly that when I really wanted to find out what the original word was, it was not in my incomplete Young's. So I graduated to using a Complete and Exhaustive Strong's Concordance. Strong's seemed awkward at first, having to find a number before you could find a word. But the assurance that every word in scripture was in there and that all I needed was a question about any word in the King James English Bible and I was sure to find the original word made it indespinsible." <http://mikevinson.home.mindspring.com/study.html>

Ouchie, that wasn't very positive. Let's try this one:

"Young's concordance is limited in defined notations and is not numerically indexed to the New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance ...like many of the other concordances. However, that lack of defined usages can be advantageous, that is, until you first learn to allow God's Word to speak for itself in the true defining of its own words and subjects." <http://joechristiangod-log.blogs.com/bible_study_lessons/2005/03/bible_study_les.html>

Okay, enough negative press. What does this great work of Robert Young have to say about "perish" and "death". It must be good if it's so superior to Strongs. Hmmm. No online version seems to be available. Not very accommodating, this Robert Young person. I'll have to get back to you on Young's (after my trip to the book store).
 
Thanatos

guibox said:
'thanatos' is used to mean 'cease to exist' which is what death is.
That one snuck by me until Kwag responded and I saw it in quotes.
You have inserted a meaning into the term thanatos which is simply not there. Quite the contrary. The word comes from the root thnesko, which means die, or properly, to die, to die physically. The term was used classically to speak of capital punishment. In Greek thinking, it would refer to the separation of soul and body, not the cessation of existence, which was guibox's insertion.

I presume that was an oversight on Guibox's part, and not some sleight of hand.

Guibox has also mistated the proper translation of apollumi. It is also a compound term, coming from apo (away from) and olethros, which refers to ruin, not destruction. Apollumis is best understood as ruin, not destroy. The reason why 'lost' is also a good translation is because, in English, when a house is ruined in a flood, we say it was lost.
 
Re: Thanatos

Orthodox Christian said:
guibox said:
'thanatos' is used to mean 'cease to exist' which is what death is.
That one snuck by me until Kwag responded and I saw it in quotes.
You have inserted a meaning into the term thanatos which is simply not there. Quite the contrary. The word comes from the root thnesko, which means die, or properly, to die, to die physically. The term was used classically to speak of capital punishment. In Greek thinking, it would refer to the separation of soul and body, not the cessation of existence, which was guibox's insertion.

You are not studying the word exegetically, OC. First of all the bible, not Greek thinking, is our source of truth and must be reconciled unto itself. The concept of an immortal soul was foreign to the OT and the Hebrews and to read a soul into thanatos is improper. Let's look at thanatos used in it's context:


"My soul is sorrowful unto thanatos" - Matthew 26:38
"For Moses said, Honor thy father and mother and whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the thanatos" - Mark 7:10
"Verily, verily I say unto you, he who keeps my saying, he shall never see thanatos"

(Now this text takes some pondering. If in fact, 'thanatos' means the death of the body but not the soul, then this verse is saying that we will never PHYSICALLY die. Obviously this is not the case so 'thanatos' means 'death' period. And as the Hebrews and Christians believed, death without resurrection was ETERNAL death. There was no 'duality' of man. Death meant the 'death of consciousness' as well without Christ. - 1 Corinthians 15:16-23)

"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of thanatos because it was not possible that He be holden of it" - Acts 2:24

(Again, we see that Christ conquered 'thanatos' - death both bodily and consciously. This is an example of death (the death being spoken of in Romans 6:23) of the whole man being conquered by the resurrection, the first fruits spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:22.23)

I could go on with the other 112 uses of thanatos (translated as only 'death' in Youngs) to show that the wholistic view of 'death' of the whole man was believed but I think you get the picture. This 'thanatos' is CONTRASTED with 'eternal life' in Romans 6:23.

It is gratuitous assumption and preconceived eisigetical notions that make this word in it's context mean 'soul and body split'.

Orthodox Christian said:
I presume that was an oversight on Guibox's part, and not some sleight of hand.

No oversight. It is quite plain when one doesn't insert their own views into the translation of the text.

Orthodox Christian said:
Guibox has also mistated the proper translation of apollumi. It is also a compound term, coming from apo (away from) and olethros, which refers to ruin, not destruction. Apollumis is best understood as ruin, not destroy. The reason why 'lost' is also a good translation is because, in English, when a house is ruined in a flood, we say it was lost.

Let's see where 'appolumi' is used to mean 'lost' or 'ruin'

-apollumi "to lose"
Matthew 10:6, 15:24, 18:11
Luke 15:4,6,24,32, 19:10
John 6:12
John 17:12
2 Corinthians 4:3

- None of these describe the ultimate fate of the wicked but merely means 'to be lost' as in the case of the lost sheep or the prodigal son who was lost but now is found'

- apollumi - "to be marred"
Mark 2:22 the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be apollum.

-appolumi - "to perish"

33 uses none of which don't give the impression that 'perish' doesn't mean 'destroy'

for example, those that are asleep in the graves will 'apollumi' if they aren't resurrected. We know that the resurrection is to life, hence if they are not resurrected, they will perish. This doesn't mean 'eternal conscious torment'.

- apollumi - 'to ruin'

Doesn't exist

- apollumi - "to destroy" "to lose off or away'
23 uses all meaning to literally destroy or bring an end to conscious existence

We see that 'apollumi' must have the preconceived notion of 'body and soul' split for it to make any sense in the fashion that OC and others are trying to make it.

Instead we see that apollumi is used to mean 'destroy' when it comes to the fate of the wicked. When we bring other texts that correspond with it such as

Malachi 4:1,3
Psalms 37:10,20

And link it to texts such as:

John 3:16,17
Romans 6:23
John 6:40,47

That show the wicked do not receive eternal life or immortality

We see that the ultimate fate of the wicked is non existence through the medium of 'unquenchable' fire that is eternal in it's results

(As is mentioned in Jude 7 and Isaiah 34:10 in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Edom)

This can only happen if the New world is to be free of 'pain and suffering'.
 
Re: Thanatos

guibox said:
Orthodox Christian said:
guibox said:
'thanatos' is used to mean 'cease to exist' which is what death is.
That one snuck by me until Kwag responded and I saw it in quotes.
You have inserted a meaning into the term thanatos which is simply not there. Quite the contrary. The word comes from the root thnesko, which means die, or properly, to die, to die physically. The term was used classically to speak of capital punishment. In Greek thinking, it would refer to the separation of soul and body, not the cessation of existence, which was guibox's insertion.

You are not studying the word exegetically, OC.
Wrong. What you mean to say is that I am not providing an explanation of the text that you are comfortable with.

First of all the bible, not Greek thinking, is our source of truth and must be reconciled unto itself.
To understand Greek terms, one first looks at Greek uses. To understand the application of Greek terms by Jewish writers, one must look at internal and external comparisons.
This is something that neither you or I do, Guibox. Do you read Homerian Greek? Are you reading comparitive Greek texts from the first century among the Greek speaking Jews? Are you studying Greek, Chaldean and Aramaic texts from the so-called intertestmental to see how the notions of death and the soul were understood?

No, you're not, you're relying on the redaction of scholars. And for the most part, so am I. I nor you are in the position to do morphological analysis of Greek terms.

Neither are you or I equipped to historical/contextual analysis of the development of Jewish thought. Let's just keep these facts in mind.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's talk about how to read these texts:
You enter with a great many suppositions about what the Palestine Jews of the first century believed about life, death, and the soul. On one hand you parallel their beliefs with your SDA take on what the Hebrew scriptures say- but when it is pointed out that Hebrew apocallyptic literature like the Book of Enoch demonstrates that the Jews of Palestione in the third century BC really did believe in eternal souls, you claim this is Helenism, and dimiss it. Yet Jude, an Essene and brother of the overtly Hebraic James, quotes Enoch.

In short, your argument is full of holes.


The concept of an immortal soul was foreign to the OT and the Hebrews and to read a soul into thanatos is improper. Let's look at thanatos used in it's context:

Before you go on, I need to address the lie you just perpetrated. I need not confront your argument about immortal soul being foreign to the OT, that would be a lengthy and divergent, futile argument. That the concept was foreign to the Hebrews has been demonstrated to be a falsehood. That it is foreign to the Jew of today is also a falsehood, as I have proven on this very thread.



"My soul is sorrowful unto thanatos" - Matthew 26:38
Contextually, Jesus is speaking of the emotions and grief and anxiety in his psuche/soul which were so powerful as to kill Him- as His drops of blood testified. The "soul" that He referred to is not the soul of which we speak, but of course you knew that. :wink:
"For Moses said, Honor thy father and mother and whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the thanatos" - Mark 7:10
Since you are fond of citing OT thinking, just what sort of death would a disobedient child die?
"Verily, verily I say unto you, he who keeps my saying, he shall never see thanatos"
Since even those who obey Him see physical death, the remaining figurative meaning is that there is something in them that will never die. Geesh, I wonder what that might be.


"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of thanatos because it was not possible that He be holden of it" - Acts 2:24
And what happened when Christ was Resurrected? His pnevma rejoined His soma.
Or would you argue that when Jesus lie dead in the Tomb, He was unconscious also?


I could go on with the other 112 uses of thanatos (translated as only 'death' in Youngs) to show that the wholistic view of 'death' of the whole man was believed but I think you get the picture.
I get the picture, alright- you're reaching and the limb is 50 feet over head.
There's an ancient hymn of the Church that goes like this:

Hristos anesti, ek nekron, thanato thanaton patisas kai tis en tis mnimasi, zoin, harisa menos
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs, bestowing life.

Trampling down death by death. Whose death? His. What death? Well, physical death still reigns on this earth. But He gave life to those in the tombs. "Oh," you say, "that's just your tradition."
Sure. And where exactly did the saints emptied from their tombs, who showed themselves in Jerusalem, go? And where is Enoch? Avraham? Elijah?


This 'thanatos' is CONTRASTED with 'eternal life' in Romans 6:23.
Eternal life vs ruin- that would be a legitimate contrast. Perhaps you are aware of what life means in the language the New Testament was written in? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't just mean breath. Zoe life is used in the New Testament, regarding the future life, as "full" life, vigor, vitality. The opposite of these is not properly stasis, but is stupor?

It is gratuitous assumption and preconceived eisigetical notions that make this word in it's context mean 'soul and body split'.
No, that's what the Greek word means and implies, from classical Greek through modern. What is egregious and preposterous assumption is the pretenders at Semiticism now also re-writing Greek lexicography.

Orthodox Christian said:
I presume that was an oversight on Guibox's part, and not some sleight of hand.

No oversight. It is quite plain when one doesn't insert their own views into the translation of the text.
Which of course, you haven't done.... :roll:
 
Re: Thanatos

Orthodox Christian said:
You enter with a great many suppositions about what the Palestine Jews of the first century believed about life, death, and the soul. On one hand you parallel their beliefs with your SDA take on what the Hebrew scriptures say- but when it is pointed out that Hebrew apocallyptic literature like the Book of Enoch demonstrates that the Jews of Palestione in the third century BC really did believe in eternal souls, you claim this is Helenism, and dimiss it. Yet Jude, an Essene and brother of the overtly Hebraic James, quotes Enoch.

That there was a belief amongst some Jews during the intertestamental period is true. That this was the belief of all Jews was false. You can find eternal torment and complete annihilaton in the intertestamental books.

Orthodox Christian said:
Before you go on, I need to address the lie you just perpetrated. I need not confront your argument about immortal soul being foreign to the OT, that would be a lengthy and divergent, futile argument. That the concept was foreign to the Hebrews has been demonstrated to be a falsehood. That it is foreign to the Jew of today is also a falsehood, as I have proven on this very thread.

There is no lie, OC. The Hebrews believed in the wholistic view of man. The scriptures bear this out scripture after scripture. The 'soul' means 'life' nephesh and not some ethereal part of man that survives death. Rather we see that (like the NT Christians) resurrection from the grave and not immortality was the hope of eternal life in the kingdom to come.

Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10
Job 14:10-14,21
Psalm 146:3,4
Daniel 12:1,2

make it abundantly clear that man is in their grave awaiting resurrection at the last days. The hebrew words for 'soul' - nephesh' and spirit - breath -ruach show that all were necessary for the existence of man. One couldn't exist without the other.

This same view was carried into the New Testament
Orthodox Christian said:
"My soul is sorrowful unto thanatos" - Matthew 26:38
Contextually, Jesus is speaking of the emotions and grief and anxiety in his psuche/soul which were so powerful as to kill Him- as His drops of blood testified. The "soul" that He referred to is not the soul of which we speak, but of course you knew that. :wink:

But you are saying that 'thanatos' is merely talking about the body, not the soul. This verse along with the others you are trying to disparage show that there wasn't a distinction with the use of 'thanatos' in the eyes of the gospel writers. This shows a wholistic view of man.

We see that this 'death' of the whole man is avoided due to the death and resurrection of Christ which finds it's culmination in the resurrection of the just to eternal life (1 Corinthians 15).

It is assumption, and proven wrong by the scriptures, that a 'body soul' split wasn't even a factor in the determination and use of 'thanatos'.


Orthodox Christian said:
This 'thanatos' is CONTRASTED with 'eternal life' in Romans 6:23.
Eternal life vs ruin- that would be a legitimate contrast. Perhaps you are aware of what life means in the language the New Testament was written in? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't just mean breath. Zoe life is used in the New Testament, regarding the future life, as "full" life, vigor, vitality. The opposite of these is not properly stasis, but is stupor?

It is not 'ruin'. That is a preconceived assumption. Death is always used in the bible to mean just that 'death' and 'destruction' destruction when applying to the wicked. Ruin is not the opposite of eternal life. If the soul is immortal, then 'ruin' is the same thing as 'eternal life' just in a different form. The Bible doesn't make that parallel. It contrasts. Sheep/goats, light/darkness, lost/found.. life/death,

The rest of the scrptures cooborate this, OC. You must let the bible harmonize itself. Where one part is ambiguous, it is explained elsewhere in the scriptures.
 
Re: Thanatos

Orthodox Christian said:
You enter with a great many suppositions about what the Palestine Jews of the first century believed about life, death, and the soul. On one hand you parallel their beliefs with your SDA take on what the Hebrew scriptures say- but when it is pointed out that Hebrew apocallyptic literature like the Book of Enoch demonstrates that the Jews of Palestione in the third century BC really did believe in eternal souls, you claim this is Helenism, and dimiss it. Yet Jude, an Essene and brother of the overtly Hebraic James, quotes Enoch.

That there was a belief amongst some Jews during the intertestamental period is true. That this was the belief of all Jews was false. You can find eternal torment and complete annihilaton in the intertestamental books.
I never stated or implied that belief in the immortal soul was the "belief of all Jews." Belief in resurrection wasn't the belief of all Jews either- enter the Saducees
Secondly, the 'intertestemental period' is essentially a Protestant fabrication based upon their rejection of the Christian OT canon and reception of the Masoretic canon. The canon and text of the Masoretes dates only to the 5th or 6th century AD, as opposed to the Septuagint, which dates two centuries BC.


Orthodox Christian said:
Before you go on, I need to address the lie you just perpetrated. I need not confront your argument about immortal soul being foreign to the OT, that would be a lengthy and divergent, futile argument. That the concept was foreign to the Hebrews has been demonstrated to be a falsehood. That it is foreign to the Jew of today is also a falsehood, as I have proven on this very thread.

There is no lie, OC. The Hebrews believed in the wholistic view of man. The scriptures bear this out scripture after scripture. The 'soul' means 'life' nephesh and not some ethereal part of man that survives death. Rather we see that (like the NT Christians) resurrection from the grave and not immortality was the hope of eternal life in the kingdom to come.

Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Job 14:10-14,21
You would use this to teach, when Job is not even clear if there is a resurrection?
If mortals die, can they live again? This thought would give me hope, and through my struggle I would eagerly wait for release.
Psalm 146:3,4
Psalm 139:8

make it abundantly clear that man is in their grave awaiting resurrection at the last days. The hebrew words for 'soul' - nephesh' and spirit - breath -ruach show that all were necessary for the existence of man. One couldn't exist without the other.
And the 'breath of God,' which of God, and returns to Him, is just breath, or life-force. By this logic, the kadesh ruach is simply a life force of God, and not a person.
Not even present-day Jews hold to such a view, which I have already demonstrated.


This same view was carried into the New Testament
Orthodox Christian said:
"My soul is sorrowful unto thanatos" - Matthew 26:38
Contextually, Jesus is speaking of the emotions and grief and anxiety in his psuche/soul which were so powerful as to kill Him- as His drops of blood testified. The "soul" that He referred to is not the soul of which we speak, but of course you knew that.
:wink:

But you are saying that 'thanatos' is merely talking about the body,
Jesus is clearly referring to His body. Would you have us believe that His spirit died also, or do you deny He has/had one of those? Or rather, is one of those. Aftr all, we don't have souls, we are souls.
not the soul. This verse along with the others you are trying to disparage show that there wasn't a distinction with the use of 'thanatos' in the eyes of the gospel writers. This shows a wholistic view of man.
I think you will want to edit this part. I have stated from the beginning just exactly this- that thanatos refers to the death of the body, and in Greek thinking referred to the separation of Body and soul.

It is assumption, and proven wrong by the scriptures, that a 'body soul' split wasn't even a factor in the determination and use of 'thanatos'.
The assumption is and was made by you. You said "thanatos means cease to exist." This is simply not true. Nowhere does thanatos even roughly imply 'cease to exist.'


Orthodox Christian said:
This 'thanatos' is CONTRASTED with 'eternal life' in Romans 6:23.
Eternal life vs ruin- that would be a legitimate contrast. Perhaps you are aware of what life means in the language the New Testament was written in? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't just mean breath. Zoe life is used in the New Testament, regarding the future life, as "full" life, vigor, vitality. The opposite of these is not properly stasis, but is stupor?

It is not 'ruin'. That is a preconceived assumption. Death is always used in the bible to mean just that 'death' and 'destruction' destruction when applying to the wicked. Ruin is not the opposite of eternal life. If the soul is immortal, then 'ruin' is the same thing as 'eternal life' just in a different form. The Bible doesn't make that parallel. It contrasts. Sheep/goats, light/darkness, lost/found.. life/death,
I can see that you have dodged the discussion of what zoe means, and how it is applied to life in the coming age.

By the way, you've named only dichotomies, and missed some obvious comparisons: lukewarm vs cold (not dichotomous); faith vs doubt (not opposites, but gradients on a continuum).

There shall be gradients of reward in the age to come (rewards). What is the opposite of gradients of reward? Ashier ashes?

:roll:

The rest of the scrptures cooborate this, OC. You must let the bible harmonize itself. Where one part is ambiguous, it is explained elsewhere in the scriptures.
Ahh, the bible which harmonizes with itself. Like Moses' decree allowing divorce (Deut 24:3)harmonizes with Christ's prohibition of same (Matt 5:31). Like the harmonizing of stoning rebellious teens to death (Deut 21:18-21) harmonizes with putting a stone around the neck of those who cause such to stumble(Mark 9:42). Like how the shema harmonizes with the epiphany (Christ's baptism)

The harmony is this: The New Covenant is the superior and subrogating revelation (Hebrews 1:1-2). When I see people use OT to refute NT, I know they are deeply confused.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
There is no end to the literal scriptures that you will contextualize so as to defend soul sleep.

I just love it how to justify 'immortal soul' which doesn't exist in the bible, traditionalists will pooh-pooh a very biblical belief that permeates throughout scripture.

Read the following:

Death as a Sleep in the New Testament. Death is described as sleep in the New Testament more frequently than in the Old. The reason may be that the hope of the resurrection, which is clarified and strengthened by Christ’s resurrection, gives new meaning to the sleep of death from which believers will awaken at Christ’s coming. As Christ slept in the tomb prior to His resurrection, so believers sleep in the grave while awaiting their resurrection.

There are two Greek words meaning "sleep" which are used in the New Testament. The first is koimao which is used fourteen times for the sleep of death. A derivative of this Greek noun is koimeeteerion , from which comes our word cemetery. Incidentally, the root of this word is also the root of the word "home–oikos." So the home and the cemetery are connected because both are a sleeping-place. The second Greek word is katheudein, which is generally used for ordinary sleep. In the New Testament it is used four times for the sleep of death (Matt 9:24; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52; Eph 5:14; 1 Thess 4:14).

At the time of Christ’s crucifixion, "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep [kekoimemenon] were raised" (Matt 27:52). In the original, the text reads: "Many bodies of the sleeping saints were raised." It is evident that what was resurrected was the whole person and not just the bodies. There is no reference to their souls being reunited with their bodies, obviously because this concept is foreign to the Bible.
Speaking figuratively of Lazarus’ death, Jesus said: "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep [kekoimetai], but I go to awake him out of sleep" (John 11:11). When Jesus perceived that He was misunderstood, He "told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead" (John 11:14). Then Jesus hastened to reassure Martha: "Your brother will rise again" (John 11:23).

This episode is significant, first of all, because Jesus plainly describes death as "sleep" from which the dead will awaken at the sound of His voice. Lazarus’ condition in death was similar to a sleep from which one awakens. Christ said: " I go to awake him out of sleep" (John 11:11). The Lord carried out His promise by going to the tomb to awaken Lazarus by calling: "‘Lazarus, come out.’ And the dead man came out’" (John 11:43-44).

The awakening of Lazarus out of the sleep of death by the sound of Christ’s voice parallels the awakening of the sleeping saints on the day of His glorious coming. They, too, shall hear the voice of Christ and come forth to life again. "The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth" (John 5:28; cf. John 5:25). "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, . . . And the dead in Christ will rise first" (1 Thess 4:16). There is harmony and symmetry in the expressions "sleeping" and "awakening" as used in the Bible for going into and coming out of a death state. The two expressions corroborate the notion that death is an unconscious state like sleeping, from which believers will awake on the day of Christ’s coming.

"Immortality or Resurrection? - Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi

Nope...no evidence whatsoever for 'soul' sleep. Actually, soul sleep is not a correct term as man doesn't have a soul, but he IS one. And that soul is resurrected at the second coming completely whole. Only then, and not at death with a disembodied soul is death conquered and eternal life gained. (1 Corinthians 15)

Only a complete fool with blinders on can ignore the obvious evidence that an immortal soul was not supported by Christ or Paul

But I digress...
 
Back
Top