I disagree that I've ignore anything except the interpretation that you apply on scriptures. You're the one ignoring Genesis 2:7. No scripture in the Bible is going to contradict Genesis 2:7. Genesis 2:7 is how God created the human being. It doesn't say that God GAVE the human being a living soul or living person, but that's what you're teaching people, that God GAVE the human being a living soul not that the human being BECAME a living soul. As long as Genesis 2:7 says, that the flesh and blood human body BECAME a living soul when God blew the breath (spirit) of life into the flesh and blood human body, that's what I'm going to believe. I disagree that the scriptures teach that human beings have living souls when I can see that the scriptures teach that human beings are living souls.
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!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
The Nature of the Soul and Hell
- Thread starter BB1956
- Start date
Yet, Jesus teaches us that we do have souls, in Matt 10:28. I don't see any other way to understand that verse. Remember, the Bible uses progressive revelation, so many things become more clear as the story unfolds.
Matthew 10:28 doesn't teach we have immortal souls, you have already admitted to that, because you said at post #4 Matthew 10:28 "does not say that God "will destroy both body and soul in hell," only that he "is able" to." Well if he's able to to destroy both body and soul in gehenna, then the soul can't be immortal.
If someone has Immortality then the one said to have immortality is beyond death, that death has no hold on that person. So this person who is immortal can't be destroyed.
If someone says a person is immortal but then says the person he/she said is immortal can be destroyed, or is cable of being destroyed, then that person doesn't have immortality, otherwise immortality doesn't mean a person is beyond death, or that such a person who is immortal isn't indestructible.
We have a soul that survives death. It is not something that man can kill or destroy, only God can. So, it seems that if God doesn’t destroy the souls of people, they simply survive death and continue on.
Matthew 10:28 is a scripture that teaches us that God can destroy the soul. So this scripture at Matthew 10:28 doesn't teach human beings have immortal souls. This Scripture teaches that human beings who God has judged as not deserving eternal life will be destroyed body and soul, which means they will be destroyed out of existence as a living person for eternity. People have been claiming this scripture teaches that human beings have immortal souls but it doesn't, it teaches the opposite. God has never promised eternal life or immortality to the unrighteous.
It clearly and unequivocally teaches that the soul survives physical death.
Of course he never promised eternal life, but then we need to define exactly what is meant by “life.”
No it Matthew 10:28 doesn't teach that human beings have an immortal soul that survives death when a human being dies. Commenting on this passage in his book Immortality of the soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (French), Professor Oscar Cullmann writes: “psykhe [soul] here does not mean the Greek concept of soul but should rather be translated "life". . . . W. G. Kümmel . . . also writes with good reason: Matt. 10:28 ‘does not seek to highlight the immortality of the soul, but underlines the fact that God alone can destroy not only earthly life but also heavenly life.’” Yes, Gehenna represents utter destruction from which no resurrection is possible. The New Bible Commentary (Second Edition, page 786) defines Gehenna as “a description of ‘the second death.’”(Revelation 21:8)
The Bible does not indicate that all the dead will be resurrected. Jesus implied this when he spoke of “those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead.” (Lu 20:35) The possibility of eternal destruction for some is also indicated by Jesus’ words at Matthew 10:28.
Regarding this text at Matthew 10:28 The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 304) states: “Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine judgment on the unrepentant.” Also, Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker, 1979, p. 95) gives the meaning “eternal death” with reference to the Greek phrase in Matthew 10:28 translated “destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” Thus, being consigned to Gehenna refers to utter destruction from which no resurrection is possible.
Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them . . . are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (Jude 7) That punishment applies not merely to the physical cities but to their inhabitants as well, because it was the people themselves who committed the gross sins that led to their annihilation.
The possibility of eternal destruction is particularly an issue during the conclusion of the system of things. When Jesus was asked by his disciples what would be ‘the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things,’ he included as part of his answer the parable of the sheep and the goats. (Mt 24:3; 25:31-46) Concerning “the goats” it was foretold that the heavenly King would say: “Be on your way from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels,” and Jesus added, “These will depart into everlasting cutting-off.” Clearly the attitude and actions of some individuals will result in their permanent destruction.
Tenchi
Member
But I didn't offer any interpretation particularly, only a series of verses/passages that indicate very clearly that the soul survives the death of the body and goes on to be with God in a discrete, identifiable form.
How do the souls, seen by John in heaven, robed in white, calling out in audible voices from beneath an altar, do so if the death of the body is the death of the person? (Revelation 6:9-10)
How were Elijah and Moses able to stand with Christ on the "high mountain" and talk with him if the death of their bodies meant the death of themselves? Their bodies being long dead, and the General Resurrection yet to occur, Moses and Elijah could not have been present on the mountain in a physical form, yet they were still discernible to Peter and John and spoke with Christ. (Matthew 17:1-3)
If the soul does not survive the death of the body, what did Paul mean when he wrote "to be absent from the body is to be present (at home) with the Lord"? The sense in Paul's words is not merely the "breath" of God, the animating energy of the Creator, returning to its Source, but of the distinct, individual, and unique person called Paul going to dwell in the presence of his Lord, the Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:8)
What of Christ's parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)? Did Christ teach falsehood, did he teach fiction, when he spoke of the Paradise that Lazarus enjoyed and the torment of hell in which the Rich Man suffered? In no other parable does Christ use the actual name of a person. This suggests that Christ did not want the parable taken as merely figurative. Why give any names, if the story is totally made up? What's more, all of Christ's parables employed temporally-real and common events and things as analogies, or symbols, of spiritual realities and truths. He did not use utterly fictional situations or things to teach the spiritual truths encapsulated in his parables. Making the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man uniquely fantastical, then, runs directly contrary to what was typical of all of Christ's other parables. Finally, even if one wants to hold that the parable is figurative, doing so does not escape or dissolve the reality of which it is symbolic. All of Christ's parables are analogies for higher and greater spiritual realities, not lesser or entirely imagined ones.
It seems to me, then, that this parable very effectively eradicates any notion of the soul being merely "animating energy" and that when one's body dies, one is entirely - body AND soul - dead. Lazarus and the Rich Man indicate a VERY different future for us all when we die.
If, upon the death of the body, one's soul "energy" is re-absorbed by God, and there is no more Joe, or Sally, or Bob until God reconstitutes their existence at the Final Judgment, then what did Paul mean when he wrote, "My desire is to depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:21-24)? His words cannot be construed as meaning he looked forward to being subsumed into Christ, his soul merely animating energy returning to its source. He did not expect his soul to be absorbed into Christ and disappear but, as a distinct individual, to be with him, as the angels in heaven are with God, or as Elijah and Moses were with Christ, or as the martyred saints crying out from under the heavenly altar will be with their Maker in heaven.
Why would Jesus say that a person should fear God because "can destroy . . . heavenly life"? Those explanations actually make no sense, unless one can sin in heaven, but that is pointless to his listeners in the here and now. It just begs the question as to what "life" and "heavenly life" are. But, in the end, it makes Jesus's warning rather pointless.
I agree in the sense that once one is in the lake of fire, there is no hope of getting out.
Actually it does, but there is another thread for that discussion.
Here are a of couple of problems for your position. If there is no immortal soul, or even a mortal soul that survives physical death in this life, and the unrighteous dead are not resurrected, then "those who kill the body" actually have done what Jesus said they cannot do, they have also killed the soul. Dead is dead from your position. It then makes the second death meaningless, since once they physically die in this life, they stay dead; they are already eternally destroyed.
Your position also cannot account for Jesus's words here:
Luk 12:45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk,
Luk 12:46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful.
Luk 12:47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.
Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (ESV)
Jesus clearly teaches at least two, if not three, degrees of punishment for unbelievers. Note that that contrasts with the levels of reward for believers according to Paul (1 Cor 3:12-15). If there is no soul that survives death, and the unrighteous dead remain dead with all receiving the same punishment, then when does this occur, where do varying levels of punishment come in?
Jesus also says this in Matt 24:
Mat 24:48 But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’
Mat 24:49 and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards,
Mat 24:50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know
Mat 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (ESV)
It's rather impossible for there to be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" if these people cease to exist.
There is nothing in that passage to suggest permanent destruction:
Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
...
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (ESV)
Verse 41 also brings us to Rev 20:10:
Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (ESV)
Torment is not destruction.
Regarding Matthew 17:1-3 Jesus himself called what took place a “vision” (Matthew 17:9), but not a mere illusion. Christ was actually there, though Moses and Elijah, who were dead, were not literally present. They were represented in vision. The Greek word used for “vision” at Matthew 17:9 is horama also rendered “sight.” (Ac 7:31) It does not imply unreality, as though the observers were laboring under a delusion. Nor were they insensible to what occurred, for they were fully awake when witnessing the transfiguration. With their literal eyes and ears they actually saw and heard what took place at that time.—Lu 9:32.
At 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul says: “We are of good courage and are well pleased rather to become absent from the body and to make our home with the Lord.”
Some believe that these words refer to an intermediate state of waiting. Such ones refer also to Jesus’ promise to his faithful followers that he was going to prepare a place in which to ‘receive them home to himself.’
But when would such prospects be realized? Christ said that it would be when he ‘came again’ in his future presence. (John 14:1-3) Similarly, at 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul said that the hope common to anointed Christians was to inherit a heavenly dwelling. This would come about, not through some presumed immortality of the soul, but through a resurrection of the dead during Christ’s presence. (1 Corinthians 15:23, 42-44)
Free said,
Why would Jesus say that a person should fear God because "can destroy . . . heavenly life"? Those explanations actually make no sense, unless one can sin in heaven, but that is pointless to his listeners in the here and now. It just begs the question as to what "life" and "heavenly life" are. But, in the end, it makes Jesus's warning rather pointless.[/QUOTE\]
Satan and his demons were angels who did sin. They once lived in heaven and God will destroy them out of existence as living persons, because the scriptures show that Satan and his demons will be symbolically thrown into the Lake of Fire, which the scriptures tell us is the second death. Gehenna which is the word used at Matthew 10:28 is a condition just like the Lake of Fire.
The Bible gives no indication of any return from Gehenna. “The lake of fire” and “the fiery Gehenna” both represent permanent, everlasting destruction.—Revelation 20:14, 15; 21:8; Matthew 18:9.
So just as those human beings that God has judged as unrighteous and deserving of being destroyed for eternity, never existing as living persons again, Satan and his demons will be destroyed for eternity never existing as living persons again.
Why would Jesus say that a person should fear God because "can destroy . . . heavenly life"? Those explanations actually make no sense, unless one can sin in heaven, but that is pointless to his listeners in the here and now. It just begs the question as to what "life" and "heavenly life" are. But, in the end, it makes Jesus's warning rather pointless.[/QUOTE\]
Satan and his demons were angels who did sin. They once lived in heaven and God will destroy them out of existence as living persons, because the scriptures show that Satan and his demons will be symbolically thrown into the Lake of Fire, which the scriptures tell us is the second death. Gehenna which is the word used at Matthew 10:28 is a condition just like the Lake of Fire.
The Bible gives no indication of any return from Gehenna. “The lake of fire” and “the fiery Gehenna” both represent permanent, everlasting destruction.—Revelation 20:14, 15; 21:8; Matthew 18:9.
So just as those human beings that God has judged as unrighteous and deserving of being destroyed for eternity, never existing as living persons again, Satan and his demons will be destroyed for eternity never existing as living persons again.
The way you have chosen to reason on the scriptures shows that you have been deceived just as Eve was deceived to believe a person doesn't die. You believe like those who worship false gods, who didn't believe in death but instead believed death was just a doorway to another plain of existence and a person continued on living in that spiritual plain of existence. That's what you teach. Because you teach that human beings have immortal souls, even though the scriptures don't teach that. You believe that when a human dies the person he/she is whether he/she is righteous or unrighteous they continues to live, in a spiritual state called an immortal soul.
Free said,
Here are a of couple of problems for your position. If there is no immortal soul, or even a mortal soul that survives physical death in this life, and the unrighteous dead are not resurrected, then "those who kill the body" actually have done what Jesus said they cannot do, they have also killed the soul. Dead is dead from your position. It then makes the second death meaningless, since once they physically die in this life, they stay dead; they are already eternally destroyed.[/QUOTE\]
I'm thinking you don't want to believe what Matthew 10:28 says Free. You tried to use this scripture to say that human beings have immortal souls, but this scripture shows that the soul can be destroyed by God. So this scripture proved the opposite of what you said. For anyone to try to use this scripture to prove that human beings have immortal souls in their physical human bodies this scripture denies that human beings have immortal souls. If human beings had immortal souls then the soul would be indestructible, that's what immortality means, beyond destruction.
Will you now try to come up with another definition or another reasoning that denies that immortality means indestructible?
At death of a human being God is capable of reading the heart and mind of that person and judging whether that person deserves a resurrection or not. Those who don't believe God can do that just prove to me they have no faith that God can and will do that.
When we look at the first part of Matthew 10:28 it says, "And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." This scripture is teaching you that another human being can kill you. So another human can cause you to lose your life temporarily. In other words you will cease to exist as a living person temporarily. But humans don't have the authority to judge or the ability to cause a person to cease to exist as a living person for eternity. So when the scripture at Matthew 10:28 tells you not to fear those who can't kill the body and soul, its talking about not to fear those who can't destroy you out of existence for eternity, only God can do that, and God is going to judge who is not deserving of eternal life.
Also let me set the record straight, I never said no unrighteous persons wouldn't be resurrected, you assumed that.
So lets take an unrighteous human who is killed by another human.
If that person is truly unrighteous do you honestly believe it was that human that decided that? God is the one who judges that. If that person remains dead for eternity because he's unrighteous it wasn't something that human who killed him decided or caused, it was God who decided he was such an unrighteous person he/she didn't deserve eternal life. No human had anything to do with that decision. So just as the scripture says at Matthew 10:28 do not fear those who can destroy the body but not the soul. The description of the word soul in Matthew 10:28 is life. God is teaching us not to fear those that take our lives but not our eternal life but fear him who can destroy us to the point we loose our eternal life.
Tenchi
Member
BB1956 wrote:
"When you say that the scriptures you quoted teach that the physical human body has a soul hat survives death then you are going by your a interpretation of that scripture that supports your belief that that a person doesn't die, that there is no death, but that a person continues living."
No, I simply conclude from what Scripture says that the death of the body does not mean the end of the person, the soul, inhabiting the body.
BB1956 wrote:
"You have been deceived just as Eve was deceived by the serpent that a person doesn't die, that there is no death."
I'm not sure why you bother to write such things since they aren't helping your case any. Merely asserting that I'm deceived doesn't make me so.
BB1956 wrote:
"In the book of Revelation this book tells us very clearly that the things John saw he was shown in signs, it seems you want people to disregard that what John saw in Revelation he was shown in signs, and that we should take everything that saw literally."
Was everything that John saw in his revelation from God a "sign"? Was it all entirely figurative? I don't think so. Was Christ a figurative sign in the Revelation? Was the glorified Jesus whom John described (Revelation 1:12-18) a mere symbol for something else? Were heaven, the angels, the throne of God, the twenty-four elders around His throne, and the many other things John described of the heavenly realm just "signs" of something else? If so, of what, exactly? Maybe you think there is no God, or Christ, or heaven but that all these things in the Revelation are just symbolic signs for something...unknown?
What about the saints under the altar crying out to God for justice requires that they be mere "signs"? Nothing that I can see - except if seeing them as real individuals puts a serious crimp in your idea about the soul being mere "animating energy" and not a person who moves beyond their body at its death into eternity. But, the saints are described by John as being in heaven, clothed, with voices, and distinguishable from one another. What "sign" would you make of them that would be more reasonable, more sensible, than to understand them to be actual beings, souls, that survived being martyred as John indicated?
BB1956 wrote:
"At Revelations 6:9 there is shown a sacrificial altar up in heaven It is the first time that John mentions an altar. In the book of Revelation he has already described YHWH God on His throne, the surrounding cherubs, the glassy sea, the lamps, and the 24 elders carrying incense, all of these resembling features of the earthly tabernacle, YHWH God's sanctuary in Israel. (Exodus 25:17, 18; 40:24-27, 30-32; 1 Chronicles 24:4)"
There has to be a first time John mentions anything in his record of the Revelation. Why, then, is it worth mentioning that the first time John refers to an altar in heaven its in chapter 6? Anyway, if there is any resemblance between the earthy tabernacle of Israel and what exists in heaven, it's the other way 'round from what you suggest. God's eternal, heavenly realm long pre-existed Israel's tabernacle. It isn't, then, that what John saw in his revelation conformed to what was the case on earth (as though John's revelation was drawing on the earthly tabernacle as a source for what he saw) but that what was the case on earth conformed to what was true in heaven.
BB1956 wrote:
"But it is a symbolic alter. Underneath this altar are “the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have.”Could this mean disembodied souls, like those believed in by the pagan Greeks? (Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4) No, John knows that the soul, or life, is symbolized by the blood, and when the priests at the ancient Jewish tabernacle slaughtered a sacrificial animal, they sprinkled the blood “round about upon the altar” or poured it “at the base of the altar of burnt offering.” (Leviticus 3:2, 8, 13; 4:7; 17:6, 11, 12) So, the animal’s soul was closely identified with the altar of sacrifice. These particular servants of God are seen underneath a symbolic altar in heaven because their deaths are viewed as sacrificial. In fact all those who are begotten as spirit sons of God die a sacrificial death."
I'm not sure what mentioning the soul in connection with "pagan Greeks" is supposed to accomplish except to insinuate that the Christian idea of the soul is borrowed from them and imported into Christian doctrine. It isn't, of course, but if you're going to suggest that it is, you have to show clearly that the apostles had borrowed this belief rather than had it inspired in them by God. If it is the case that a pagan belief made its way into the biblical text, what confidence can a believer have that other pagan notions haven't also fouled their chief theological and doctrinal document? To suggest such corruption - especially when it's impossible to actually, concretely prove - doesn't just attack the idea of an eternal, individual soul but the trustworthiness of the Bible.
You have simply assumed a parallel between the animal sacrifices of the OT and what John described in his revelation of the saints under the altar. Resemblance doesn't, by itself, however, constitute a real connection between these things. I have a nose, and ears, and eyes, just as Napoleon did. Does this parallel to him, this resemblance, mean I'm Napoleon, or that he is me? Obviously not. But this is, essentially, the sort of assumption you're making here about the OT altar and the heavenly one John described. It seems much more straightforward, much more faithful to the actual text of the Revelation, to understand that when John wrote of Christ among the seven candlesticks, or of God's throne, or the twenty-four elders, or the saints under the altar, he was speaking of real, heavenly, things, not mere signs that some reader of the Revelation millennia later could twist into whatever shape s/he likes. Besides, in the text itself concerning the saints under the altar, there is no pressing textual reason why I should see things in the entirely figurative way you want to do. I don't have a doctrinal commitment to the erroneous idea of the soul being mere animating energy forcing me to see the martyred saints as totally symbolic, like you do, you see.
BB1956 wrote:
"In fact all those who are begotten as spirit sons of God die a sacrificial death. Because of the role they are to play in YHWH God's heavenly Kingdom, it is God’s will that they renounce and sacrifice any hope of life everlasting on earth. In this respect, they submit to a sacrificial death in behalf of YHWH God's sovereignty. (Philippians 3:8-11; 2:17.)"
This only is helpful to your idea about the saints under the altar if one grants that your assumption about there being an intended parallel between them and OT animal sacrifices is correct, which I don't. So, going on about all this stuff here is, as far as I'm concerned, merely an attempt to obfuscate with verbiage the weak foundation of your view about the parallel.
By the way, Philippians 3:8-11 recounts a sacrifice that Paul made, not of himself, of his life and blood, which would make his sacrifice far more pertinent to your idea about the symbolic nature of the martyred saints under the heavenly altar, but of things Paul possessed. And Philippians 2:17 also fails to properly connect the OT sacrifice of animals, made for the expiation of sin (foreshadowing Christ's final, once-for-all atonement for sin - Hebrews 9:6-15) to the sacrifice of their lives made by the saints crying out from beneath the heavenly altar. Neither Paul's sacrifice, nor the sacrifice of the martyred saints in heaven were expiatory, as the sacrifice of animals in the OT was, signifying the future atoning sacrifice of Christ. The martyred saints under the heavenly altar, then, don't parallel the animal sacrifices of the OT, their sacrifice having no atoning virtue as the sacrifice of animals did.
"When you say that the scriptures you quoted teach that the physical human body has a soul hat survives death then you are going by your a interpretation of that scripture that supports your belief that that a person doesn't die, that there is no death, but that a person continues living."
No, I simply conclude from what Scripture says that the death of the body does not mean the end of the person, the soul, inhabiting the body.
BB1956 wrote:
"You have been deceived just as Eve was deceived by the serpent that a person doesn't die, that there is no death."
I'm not sure why you bother to write such things since they aren't helping your case any. Merely asserting that I'm deceived doesn't make me so.
BB1956 wrote:
"In the book of Revelation this book tells us very clearly that the things John saw he was shown in signs, it seems you want people to disregard that what John saw in Revelation he was shown in signs, and that we should take everything that saw literally."
Was everything that John saw in his revelation from God a "sign"? Was it all entirely figurative? I don't think so. Was Christ a figurative sign in the Revelation? Was the glorified Jesus whom John described (Revelation 1:12-18) a mere symbol for something else? Were heaven, the angels, the throne of God, the twenty-four elders around His throne, and the many other things John described of the heavenly realm just "signs" of something else? If so, of what, exactly? Maybe you think there is no God, or Christ, or heaven but that all these things in the Revelation are just symbolic signs for something...unknown?
What about the saints under the altar crying out to God for justice requires that they be mere "signs"? Nothing that I can see - except if seeing them as real individuals puts a serious crimp in your idea about the soul being mere "animating energy" and not a person who moves beyond their body at its death into eternity. But, the saints are described by John as being in heaven, clothed, with voices, and distinguishable from one another. What "sign" would you make of them that would be more reasonable, more sensible, than to understand them to be actual beings, souls, that survived being martyred as John indicated?
BB1956 wrote:
"At Revelations 6:9 there is shown a sacrificial altar up in heaven It is the first time that John mentions an altar. In the book of Revelation he has already described YHWH God on His throne, the surrounding cherubs, the glassy sea, the lamps, and the 24 elders carrying incense, all of these resembling features of the earthly tabernacle, YHWH God's sanctuary in Israel. (Exodus 25:17, 18; 40:24-27, 30-32; 1 Chronicles 24:4)"
There has to be a first time John mentions anything in his record of the Revelation. Why, then, is it worth mentioning that the first time John refers to an altar in heaven its in chapter 6? Anyway, if there is any resemblance between the earthy tabernacle of Israel and what exists in heaven, it's the other way 'round from what you suggest. God's eternal, heavenly realm long pre-existed Israel's tabernacle. It isn't, then, that what John saw in his revelation conformed to what was the case on earth (as though John's revelation was drawing on the earthly tabernacle as a source for what he saw) but that what was the case on earth conformed to what was true in heaven.
BB1956 wrote:
"But it is a symbolic alter. Underneath this altar are “the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have.”Could this mean disembodied souls, like those believed in by the pagan Greeks? (Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4) No, John knows that the soul, or life, is symbolized by the blood, and when the priests at the ancient Jewish tabernacle slaughtered a sacrificial animal, they sprinkled the blood “round about upon the altar” or poured it “at the base of the altar of burnt offering.” (Leviticus 3:2, 8, 13; 4:7; 17:6, 11, 12) So, the animal’s soul was closely identified with the altar of sacrifice. These particular servants of God are seen underneath a symbolic altar in heaven because their deaths are viewed as sacrificial. In fact all those who are begotten as spirit sons of God die a sacrificial death."
I'm not sure what mentioning the soul in connection with "pagan Greeks" is supposed to accomplish except to insinuate that the Christian idea of the soul is borrowed from them and imported into Christian doctrine. It isn't, of course, but if you're going to suggest that it is, you have to show clearly that the apostles had borrowed this belief rather than had it inspired in them by God. If it is the case that a pagan belief made its way into the biblical text, what confidence can a believer have that other pagan notions haven't also fouled their chief theological and doctrinal document? To suggest such corruption - especially when it's impossible to actually, concretely prove - doesn't just attack the idea of an eternal, individual soul but the trustworthiness of the Bible.
You have simply assumed a parallel between the animal sacrifices of the OT and what John described in his revelation of the saints under the altar. Resemblance doesn't, by itself, however, constitute a real connection between these things. I have a nose, and ears, and eyes, just as Napoleon did. Does this parallel to him, this resemblance, mean I'm Napoleon, or that he is me? Obviously not. But this is, essentially, the sort of assumption you're making here about the OT altar and the heavenly one John described. It seems much more straightforward, much more faithful to the actual text of the Revelation, to understand that when John wrote of Christ among the seven candlesticks, or of God's throne, or the twenty-four elders, or the saints under the altar, he was speaking of real, heavenly, things, not mere signs that some reader of the Revelation millennia later could twist into whatever shape s/he likes. Besides, in the text itself concerning the saints under the altar, there is no pressing textual reason why I should see things in the entirely figurative way you want to do. I don't have a doctrinal commitment to the erroneous idea of the soul being mere animating energy forcing me to see the martyred saints as totally symbolic, like you do, you see.
BB1956 wrote:
"In fact all those who are begotten as spirit sons of God die a sacrificial death. Because of the role they are to play in YHWH God's heavenly Kingdom, it is God’s will that they renounce and sacrifice any hope of life everlasting on earth. In this respect, they submit to a sacrificial death in behalf of YHWH God's sovereignty. (Philippians 3:8-11; 2:17.)"
This only is helpful to your idea about the saints under the altar if one grants that your assumption about there being an intended parallel between them and OT animal sacrifices is correct, which I don't. So, going on about all this stuff here is, as far as I'm concerned, merely an attempt to obfuscate with verbiage the weak foundation of your view about the parallel.
By the way, Philippians 3:8-11 recounts a sacrifice that Paul made, not of himself, of his life and blood, which would make his sacrifice far more pertinent to your idea about the symbolic nature of the martyred saints under the heavenly altar, but of things Paul possessed. And Philippians 2:17 also fails to properly connect the OT sacrifice of animals, made for the expiation of sin (foreshadowing Christ's final, once-for-all atonement for sin - Hebrews 9:6-15) to the sacrifice of their lives made by the saints crying out from beneath the heavenly altar. Neither Paul's sacrifice, nor the sacrifice of the martyred saints in heaven were expiatory, as the sacrifice of animals in the OT was, signifying the future atoning sacrifice of Christ. The martyred saints under the heavenly altar, then, don't parallel the animal sacrifices of the OT, their sacrifice having no atoning virtue as the sacrifice of animals did.
Tenchi
Member
BB1956 wrote:
"Their “souls were slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have.” How can their souls, or blood, cry out for vengeance, since the Bible shows that the dead are unconscious? (Ecclesiastes 9:5)"
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (NASB)
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
From the perspective of the living, which is the perspective from which the writer of Ecclesiastes is writing in this instance, the dead "know nothing." What does this mean? Well the writer of Ecclesiastes explained: They don't have any participation in, or awareness of, "all that is done under the sun." How can they? They are no longer on the earth, but as the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man clearly explains, have gone on to "Abraham's Bosom," or the flames of torment.
BB1956 wrote:
"Well, did not righteous Abel’s blood cry out after Cain murdered him? YHWH God then said to Cain: “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10, 11; Hebrews 12:24) It was not that Abel’s blood was literally uttering words. Rather, Abel had died as an innocent victim, and justice called out for his murderer to be punished. Similarly, those Christian martyrs are innocent, and in justice they must be avenged. (Luke 18:7, 8) The cry for vengeance is loud because many thousands have died this way."
Well, the very obvious problem with your thinking here is that it isn't the blood of the martyrs beneath the altar that cries out but the saints themselves. And was Abel's blood clothed in a white robe and spoken to in encouraging words, as the martyred saints were? No. If you'd let go of your commitment to your erroneous idea about the soul for a minute and just consider the text of Revelation 6:9-11 as it is, these things would be much more obvious to you and show you that you've got the wrong end of the stick about the soul.
BB1956 wrote:
"So these anointed Christians are underneath a symbolic alter in heaven, and these souls are not literally alive crying out for justice, but just as Abel was innocent and his blood called out for justice, so these servants of the true God blood cry out for justice."
You have by no means demonstrated that this is so. See above. Instead, you've wandered far afield, layering on all sorts of wonky ideas over your mistaken view of the soul, as reasoning from assumptions often prompts people to do.
"Their “souls were slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have.” How can their souls, or blood, cry out for vengeance, since the Bible shows that the dead are unconscious? (Ecclesiastes 9:5)"
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (NASB)
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
From the perspective of the living, which is the perspective from which the writer of Ecclesiastes is writing in this instance, the dead "know nothing." What does this mean? Well the writer of Ecclesiastes explained: They don't have any participation in, or awareness of, "all that is done under the sun." How can they? They are no longer on the earth, but as the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man clearly explains, have gone on to "Abraham's Bosom," or the flames of torment.
BB1956 wrote:
"Well, did not righteous Abel’s blood cry out after Cain murdered him? YHWH God then said to Cain: “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10, 11; Hebrews 12:24) It was not that Abel’s blood was literally uttering words. Rather, Abel had died as an innocent victim, and justice called out for his murderer to be punished. Similarly, those Christian martyrs are innocent, and in justice they must be avenged. (Luke 18:7, 8) The cry for vengeance is loud because many thousands have died this way."
Well, the very obvious problem with your thinking here is that it isn't the blood of the martyrs beneath the altar that cries out but the saints themselves. And was Abel's blood clothed in a white robe and spoken to in encouraging words, as the martyred saints were? No. If you'd let go of your commitment to your erroneous idea about the soul for a minute and just consider the text of Revelation 6:9-11 as it is, these things would be much more obvious to you and show you that you've got the wrong end of the stick about the soul.
BB1956 wrote:
"So these anointed Christians are underneath a symbolic alter in heaven, and these souls are not literally alive crying out for justice, but just as Abel was innocent and his blood called out for justice, so these servants of the true God blood cry out for justice."
You have by no means demonstrated that this is so. See above. Instead, you've wandered far afield, layering on all sorts of wonky ideas over your mistaken view of the soul, as reasoning from assumptions often prompts people to do.
Tenchi
Member
This isn't what the text says, though:
Matthew 17:2-3 (NASB)
2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.
3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
Was Jesus on the mountain, transfigured, as Matthew described? Yes. But when Moses and Elijah appeared and talked with Jesus, they weren't there? Does this really make sense to you? It doesn't to me. But, I'm not forced to such a strange conclusion by a commitment to a false idea about the soul. As far as I'm concerned, what you've done with the text of the passage above, denying its plain meaning, demonstrates the enormous danger of approaching the biblical text with an idea that you force it into. Why would Elijah and Moses talk with Jesus - that is, they spoke to him and he spoke to them - if they weren't really there? What would be the point of Matthew (and Luke) writing that such a conversation had happened when, in reality, it hadn't? As far as I'm concerned, a straightforward reading of the text does not lend itself to the idea that Elijah and Moses weren't really there, as you assert BB1956.
The plain sense in which an average reader, coming to the text without your pre-conceived ideas about the soul, would understand Paul is that he expected to die and be immediately with Christ. Paul also didn't speak of his soul being absent from his body, a mere animating energy that returns to God, but of himself, the person who is Paul, being absent from his body but present with the Lord. This is what so encouraged Paul, his being with the Lord personally:
Philippians 1:21-23 (NASB)
21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.
23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;
How would it be "gain" for Paul to die physically and cease to be? Clearly, such a thing would be a loss all around: He would lose, not only his physical existence and experiences, but would do so only to halt entirely, moving into who-knows-how-long a condition of non-existence, until God reconstituted him at the Final Judgment. No straightforward reading of Paul here would lead the average reader to think Paul believed such a fate would be "gain," or that it was at all what Paul was talking about. Under a natural, simple reading of Paul's remarks here, it seems crystal clear to me that his "gain" would be, at death, an immediate, personal, direct experience of being with Christ, as I am with my wife, or with friends, or family.
Tenchi
Member
BB1956 wrote:
"Matthew 10:28 doesn't teach we have immortal souls, you have already admitted to that, because you said at post #4 Matthew 10:28 "does not say that God "will destroy both body and soul in hell," only that he "is able" to." Well if he's able to to destroy both body and soul in gehenna, then the soul can't be immortal.
If someone has Immortality then the one said to have immortality is beyond death, that death has no hold on that person. So this person who is immortal can't be destroyed.
If someone says a person is immortal but then says the person he/she said is immortal can be destroyed, or is cable of being destroyed, then that person doesn't have immortality, otherwise immortality doesn't mean a person is beyond death, or that such a person who is immortal isn't indestructible."
There are a couple of serious problems with your thinking here, BB1956.
1.) "Destroy(ed)" in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean "annihilation," that is, the total eradication of a thing from all existence. It can be used figuratively, as in the case of Pharaoh's advisors:
Exodus 10:7
7 Pharaoh's servants said to him, "How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God. Do you not realize that Egypt is destroyed?"
The advisors (servants) to Pharaoh didn't mean that Egypt was actually destroyed, but only that it was badly damaged by the plagues that had already befallen it. The story of the Exodus (and the rest of the OT) reveals that, though further plagues came to Egypt, it was never actually annihilated out of existence.
Here's another example:
Numbers 21:3
3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.
Though the Canaanites were "utterly destroyed," were they completely annihilated out of existence? No. We read in chapter 33 of the book of Numbers that king Arad of the Canaanites heard of the Israelites in their wilderness journeys. If Arad was a Canaanite, and the Canaanites were "utterly destroyed," how is Arad still alive and kicking? Shouldn't he have been annihilated like the rest of the Canaanites were? Apparently, "utterly destroyed" is not a literal description meaning "total eradication."
Another example of "destroyed" not meaning "annihilation" occurs in the following:
Deuteronomy 4:26-28
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto you go over Jordan to possess it; you shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and you shall be left few in number among the heathen, wherever the LORD shall lead you.
28 And there you shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
Here, Moses, warned that the Chosen People of God, if they failed to walk in the statutes and judgments of God, would "utterly perish" and "be utterly destroyed." Did Moses mean the Israelites would be annihilated, eradicated fully from existence? No. He explained that what he meant was that the Israelites would be "scattered among the nations," and be left "few in number," serving the lifeless idols of heathen nations - a very different meaning than "total eradication from existence."
There are many such examples of a word in Scripture meaning other than what it might be understood to mean literally and actually sometimes meaning a variety of different things, depending upon context. How, then, ought one to understand Christ when he spoke of the One who was able to destroy both body and soul in hell? Did Jesus mean "annihilation" when he used the word "destroyed"? Well, not if we take other things he said about hell into account, as Free, has already pointed out:
Matthew 5:22 (NASB)
22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
If hell is the total eradication of one's soul, what difference does it make that hell is fiery? Being annihilated, the unrepentant sinner will not exist to suffer in its flames. Jesus, though, seemed to think that one should be concerned about the fact that hell is "fiery."
Mark 9:43-44 (NASB)
43 "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
44 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.]
If a person is totally eradicated in hell, what fear can they have of its fires and undying worms? Hell will end their existence, so flames and worms are irrelevant, aren't they? Jesus didn't seem to think so, though, warning his audience of these things that it seems he thought they would encounter in hell.
Matthew 25:46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It's obvious that punishment entails consciousness; one can't punish a stone, or a broom handle, or a phone book. Only sentient, self-aware and morally-responsible entities can be punished. If they are annihilated, though, the everlasting punishment of hell is escaped; for one who does not exist cannot be punished. Oh, but it is the punishment that is everlasting, not the punished. Well, again, punishment that is not experienced is not punishment. It isn't the consequences of the punishment that are everlasting but the punishment itself. Imagine threatening a murderer with the punishment of everlasting hanging. So what if the hanging is everlasting? For the murderer, the hanging is over in an instant, his neck snapping and his earthly life ended the moment he drops to the full length of the rope on which he's hung. Being dead, and so, unaware of what happens to his physical body, it makes no difference to him if his corpse is left dangling on the rope for all eternity. So, too, when one makes the consequence of punishment what is everlasting and not the punishment itself.
What Christ says, then, in the verse above defies the idea that when he spoke of Him who could "destroy" both body and soul in hell, he meant "utterly annihilate from existence."
2.) Human immortality is necessarily contingent. That is, being immortal does not remove the human being from their dependency upon God for their immortality (and everything else). Human souls are only immortal so long as God exists and ordains that they are immortal. It is a distortion of Christian orthodox belief, then, to say that the immortality of the human soul exists independent of God, beyond His power to alter. If that were so, God would not be God.
"Matthew 10:28 doesn't teach we have immortal souls, you have already admitted to that, because you said at post #4 Matthew 10:28 "does not say that God "will destroy both body and soul in hell," only that he "is able" to." Well if he's able to to destroy both body and soul in gehenna, then the soul can't be immortal.
If someone has Immortality then the one said to have immortality is beyond death, that death has no hold on that person. So this person who is immortal can't be destroyed.
If someone says a person is immortal but then says the person he/she said is immortal can be destroyed, or is cable of being destroyed, then that person doesn't have immortality, otherwise immortality doesn't mean a person is beyond death, or that such a person who is immortal isn't indestructible."
There are a couple of serious problems with your thinking here, BB1956.
1.) "Destroy(ed)" in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean "annihilation," that is, the total eradication of a thing from all existence. It can be used figuratively, as in the case of Pharaoh's advisors:
Exodus 10:7
7 Pharaoh's servants said to him, "How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God. Do you not realize that Egypt is destroyed?"
The advisors (servants) to Pharaoh didn't mean that Egypt was actually destroyed, but only that it was badly damaged by the plagues that had already befallen it. The story of the Exodus (and the rest of the OT) reveals that, though further plagues came to Egypt, it was never actually annihilated out of existence.
Here's another example:
Numbers 21:3
3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.
Though the Canaanites were "utterly destroyed," were they completely annihilated out of existence? No. We read in chapter 33 of the book of Numbers that king Arad of the Canaanites heard of the Israelites in their wilderness journeys. If Arad was a Canaanite, and the Canaanites were "utterly destroyed," how is Arad still alive and kicking? Shouldn't he have been annihilated like the rest of the Canaanites were? Apparently, "utterly destroyed" is not a literal description meaning "total eradication."
Another example of "destroyed" not meaning "annihilation" occurs in the following:
Deuteronomy 4:26-28
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto you go over Jordan to possess it; you shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and you shall be left few in number among the heathen, wherever the LORD shall lead you.
28 And there you shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
Here, Moses, warned that the Chosen People of God, if they failed to walk in the statutes and judgments of God, would "utterly perish" and "be utterly destroyed." Did Moses mean the Israelites would be annihilated, eradicated fully from existence? No. He explained that what he meant was that the Israelites would be "scattered among the nations," and be left "few in number," serving the lifeless idols of heathen nations - a very different meaning than "total eradication from existence."
There are many such examples of a word in Scripture meaning other than what it might be understood to mean literally and actually sometimes meaning a variety of different things, depending upon context. How, then, ought one to understand Christ when he spoke of the One who was able to destroy both body and soul in hell? Did Jesus mean "annihilation" when he used the word "destroyed"? Well, not if we take other things he said about hell into account, as Free, has already pointed out:
Matthew 5:22 (NASB)
22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
If hell is the total eradication of one's soul, what difference does it make that hell is fiery? Being annihilated, the unrepentant sinner will not exist to suffer in its flames. Jesus, though, seemed to think that one should be concerned about the fact that hell is "fiery."
Mark 9:43-44 (NASB)
43 "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
44 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.]
If a person is totally eradicated in hell, what fear can they have of its fires and undying worms? Hell will end their existence, so flames and worms are irrelevant, aren't they? Jesus didn't seem to think so, though, warning his audience of these things that it seems he thought they would encounter in hell.
Matthew 25:46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It's obvious that punishment entails consciousness; one can't punish a stone, or a broom handle, or a phone book. Only sentient, self-aware and morally-responsible entities can be punished. If they are annihilated, though, the everlasting punishment of hell is escaped; for one who does not exist cannot be punished. Oh, but it is the punishment that is everlasting, not the punished. Well, again, punishment that is not experienced is not punishment. It isn't the consequences of the punishment that are everlasting but the punishment itself. Imagine threatening a murderer with the punishment of everlasting hanging. So what if the hanging is everlasting? For the murderer, the hanging is over in an instant, his neck snapping and his earthly life ended the moment he drops to the full length of the rope on which he's hung. Being dead, and so, unaware of what happens to his physical body, it makes no difference to him if his corpse is left dangling on the rope for all eternity. So, too, when one makes the consequence of punishment what is everlasting and not the punishment itself.
What Christ says, then, in the verse above defies the idea that when he spoke of Him who could "destroy" both body and soul in hell, he meant "utterly annihilate from existence."
2.) Human immortality is necessarily contingent. That is, being immortal does not remove the human being from their dependency upon God for their immortality (and everything else). Human souls are only immortal so long as God exists and ordains that they are immortal. It is a distortion of Christian orthodox belief, then, to say that the immortality of the human soul exists independent of God, beyond His power to alter. If that were so, God would not be God.
You said that Paul expected to be immediately with Christ when he died. That means that you're contradicting Paul. Paul said that the resurrection of the dead wouldn't begin until Jesus second presence. He shows us this at 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. Paul doesn't contradict himself and the scriptures definitely don't contradict others. So Paul knew when he died he would sleep in death until the second presence of Jesus Christ.
All of this that you have texted here Tenchi you have texted because Matthew 10:28 shows that humans don't have immortal souls. Yet here you are texting all this that you have texted denying what Matthew 10:28 says, that God can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. You don't want to believe that God can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna Tenchi. As the true God has taught us, God has never promised eternal life to the unrighteous. That means the unrighteous won't live forever Tenchi.
So when God judges a person as unrighteous and not deserving eternal life he destroys that person body and soul. In others words Tenchi, he/she who has been judged by God unworthy of eternal life will never live again. They will never exist as living persons again. You can try all your might to teach the unrighteous will exist for eternity as living persons, they will not.