What is a man?

[Edward]

I did explain it. Firstly your claim that Enoch is excluded from Paul's statement is arbitrary, meaning it has no support. Paul said that Enoch was translated, literally transposed. He was placed somewhere else. The same thing happened to Phillip after he baptized the Eunuch. The same thing happened to Elijah when he was taken up in a chariot. Both of them were placed somewhere else. Paul says he was translated that he should not see death. Apparently his life was in danger and God put him somewhere else so that he wouldn't be killed. That doesn't mean he didn't die later like Phillip and Elijah did. Paul later says 'these all died'. So, after saying that Enoch was translated so that he wouldn't see death, he goes on to say that Enoch died.

Maybe you just have poor comprehension and reading skills?

Does anyone else think that verse 5 does not exclude Enoch from "they all died"....?

 

[Butch5]

See? Here you go again. You do not want to address what I have asked you. I don't address what you say is a problem with my view simply because therte isn't a problem with it and you wont even consider or reasonably respond to what anyone says to you. Rather you ignore a lot of things and get inane and say oh that's just your opinion...and then go on to give your opinion and lay it down like it is an established fact. That's weird brother.

That's a rather amazing statement considering there are 20 pages of me laying out arguments and explaining from Scripture what I've stated. On the other hand you guys simply toss out a passage and when I address it you say, nuh uh. Look at the passage you posted. You claimed that Enoch was excluded, based on what? You claimed it was because Paul said he should not see death. However, after saying this Paul then said that he died. If Paul wanted to exclude Enoch he could have easily done so, he didn't. So, how do you reconcile that?

I gave you a perfectly plausible explanation that fits with the Scriptures. We're not told where Enoch went. So, any claim as to where he went is speculation. You're simply assuming that when Paul said, Enoch should not see death, that he meant forever. Paul didn't say that Enoch should not see death forever. If someone said, we left the war zone so that we would not see death, does that mean those people would never die? No, it means they wouldn't die then and there. I don't think anyone would assume those people would never die. Yet for some reason when they read what Paul said they assume he meant that Enoch would never die even though he later said that Enoch died.

And, you see, I posted the part,

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death" (Heb. 11:5 KJV)

that would be used to argue against me. So, I think it's pretty clear that I'm the one actually addressing the issue

 

[Butch5]

Maybe you just have poor comprehension and reading skills?

Does anyone else think that verse 5 does not exclude Enoch from "they all died"....?

That's pretty good considering your argument.

"Does anyone else think that verse 5 does not exclude Enoch from "they all died"....?"

That's one heck of an argument. I guess if someone else believes that it's a proven fact. Ai yai yai.

 

[Edward]

That's pretty good considering your argument.

"Does anyone else think that verse 5 does not exclude Enoch from "they all died"....?"

That's one heck of an argument. I guess if someone else believes that it's a proven fact. Ai yai yai.

Well, English and reading were my best subjects in school. And it seems to me that, in that passage of scripture, clearly he was excluding Enoch from his statements after that, the way he worded it. So I asked that question to see if others comprehended it the same way that you do.

The way you talk it almost sounds like your greater interest is in "winning" rather than learning. You have a couple far out beliefs I think. But hey, let it be so according to your faith.

 

[Edward]

I'm not saying that Enoch positively never has or never will die. Just that, he didn't die back then.

There are intricacies in scripture which are hard to fully understand and we prolly never will get certain things until after we cross over. But a failure to understand something 100% right now doesn't mean that we can assume that something in our fancy is proven true. So you presuming that Enoch did die positively...is something that you have no way of knowing for sure. So I think it's in poor taste to hold as if he is dead and can't be in heaven. That's inane.

 

[Butch5]

Well, English and reading were my best subjects in school. And it seems to me that, in that passage of scripture, clearly he was excluding Enoch from his statements after that, the way he worded it. So I asked that question to see if others comprehended it the same way that you do.

The way you talk it almost sounds like your greater interest is in "winning" rather than learning. You have a couple far out beliefs I think. But hey, let it be so according to your faith.

That's interesting because I would think the same about you guys. For instance, jumping from one passage to the next doesn't really allow for any real in depth study of a passage. I've asked in this thread for someone to show where Scripture teaches that a spirit was put into man other than the breath or spirit of life. No one has. Some posted passages that referred to the spirit in man. That doesn't answer the question. Yes, there is a spirit in man, it is the breath of life. People claim that the spirit and/or soul lives on after death, yet no one has posted anything from Scripture that teaches that. There's a huge difference between what the Scriptures teach and what people infer. However, it seems a lot of people can't seem to see the difference. I've posted passages about people who died. The Scriptures say so and so died. People say no, his body died but his spirit and/or soul lives on. Well, the passage didn't say so an so's body died, it said so and so died. They have to change the Scriptures to fit their beliefs. People have defied logic. For instance, the Transfiguration. Peter plainly indicates that it's Christ's second coming and yet people claim that it was Moses and Elijah alive at that time. They have Moses and Elijah resurrected before the crucifixion, yet Paul said that Jesus is the first born from the dead. No one has addressed 1 Cor.15 where Paul, speaking of those who had died in Christ says, if there is no resurrection they had perished. This is a pretty plain statement that categorically refutes the idea that the soul and/or spirit live on after death, and yet it just gets ignored and people continue on with their arguments. I could go on with examples but I think that's sufficient. So, I hardly think that it's me that is interested in winning. I'm only pointing out what the Bible teaches.

 

[jerry63935]

Enoch was translated. It means he was put somewhere else. It seems God saved him from some life threatening event. However, he did die later as Paul notes.

one question and one only ....are you agnostic

 

[Edward]

This thread is a perfect example of why christians should (study the scriptures daily) engage the Holy Spirit before and while you read the Word of God.

That's interesting because I would think the same about you guys. For instance, jumping from one passage to the next doesn't really allow for any real in depth study of a passage. I've asked in this thread for someone to show where Scripture teaches that a spirit was put into man other than the breath or spirit of life. No one has. Some posted passages that referred to the spirit in man. That doesn't answer the question. Yes, there is a spirit in man, it is the breath of life. People claim that the spirit and/or soul lives on after death, yet no one has posted anything from Scripture that teaches that. There's a huge difference between what the Scriptures teach and what people infer. However, it seems a lot of people can't seem to see the difference. I've posted passages about people who died. The Scriptures say so and so died. People say no, his body died but his spirit and/or soul lives on. Well, the passage didn't say so an so's body died, it said so and so died. They have to change the Scriptures to fit their beliefs. People have defied logic. For instance, the Transfiguration. Peter plainly indicates that it's Christ's second coming and yet people claim that it was Moses and Elijah alive at that time. They have Moses and Elijah resurrected before the crucifixion, yet Paul said that Jesus is the first born from the dead. No one has addressed 1 Cor.15 where Paul, speaking of those who had died in Christ says, if there is no resurrection they had perished. This is a pretty plain statement that categorically refutes the idea that the soul and/or spirit live on after death, and yet it just gets ignored and people continue on with their arguments. I could go on with examples but I think that's sufficient. So, I hardly think that it's me that is interested in winning. I'm only pointing out what the Bible teaches.

Brother, you're having an identity crisis and don't realize who you are. You are a spirit being, you have a soul and you live in a body. Perhaps this animated video will explain it better than I have been able to. Get your pencil out because he gives a whole lot of scriptures to back himself up.

Man is a spirit. When Adam & Eve fell to sin, they died that day. They died spiritually. What do you think "born again" is all about? I will give you a new spirit, the Lord said.

 

[Edward]

Here is a new scripture I happened across. That man is a spirit and not merely a body.

2 Corinthians 12:2
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

He doesn't say alive or dead. He says that he could not tell if the man was in his body and physically present, or if he was there in spirit.

This is basic stuff. Man is not a human being on a spiritual journey. Man is a spirit on a human journey.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not saying that Enoch positively never has or never will die. Just that, he didn't die back then.

There are intricacies in scripture which are hard to fully understand and we prolly never will get certain things until after we cross over. But a failure to understand something 100% right now doesn't mean that we can assume that something in our fancy is proven true. So you presuming that Enoch did die positively...is something that you have no way of knowing for sure. So I think it's in poor taste to hold as if he is dead and can't be in heaven. That's inane.

It's not presuming when Paul said "these all died". If we're going to talk about presuming, you're presuming a person can live apart from the body. You're presuming that man is more than what we see in Genesis.You're presuming that people go to Heaven. There's not a single passage of Scripture that says people go to Heaven when they die, not one. We have probably the single most universally accepted doctrine in Christianity, the idea that people go to Heaven when they die, the "Christian's Hope" and there isn't a single passage of Scripture that says it. Not one.

It's easy to check, just type the word Heaven into a Bible software program and read the verses that come back from the search. If Christians are wrong about their most basic doctrine, how much more so of the doctrines of lesser importance?

 

[Butch5]

Here is a new scripture I happened across. That man is a spirit and not merely a body.

2 Corinthians 12:2
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

He doesn't say alive or dead. He says that he could not tell if the man was in his body and physically present, or if he was there in spirit.

This is basic stuff. Man is not a human being on a spiritual journey. Man is a spirit on a human journey.

There you go. You're imposing your beliefs on the text. Maybe you're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. The passage doesn't even use the word spirit. You're simply equating out of the body with being a spirit. Paul doesn't say anything at all about man being a spirit. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said there's a huge difference between the Bible teaching something and someone inferring something. You've inferred that man is a spirit from this passage. The passage doesn't say any such thing. Maybe you're just misunderstanding the passage. Remember what Jesus said,

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
(Lk. 24:37-39 KJV)

Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Man has flesh and bone. Thus man cannot be a spirit. Maybe you're misunderstanding Paul.

 

[Edward]

There you go. You're imposing your beliefs on the text. Maybe you're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. The passage doesn't even use the word spirit. You're simply equating out of the body with being a spirit. Paul doesn't say anything at all about man being a spirit. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said there's a huge difference between the Bible teaching something and someone inferring something. You've inferred that man is a spirit from this passage. The passage doesn't say any such thing. Maybe you're just misunderstanding the passage. Remember what Jesus said,

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
(Lk. 24:37-39 KJV)

Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Man has flesh and bone. Thus man cannot be a spirit. Maybe you're misunderstanding Paul.

Well how else could he have been there out of the body if it was not in spirit?

 

[Edward]

There you go. You're imposing your beliefs on the text. Maybe you're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. The passage doesn't even use the word spirit. You're simply equating out of the body with being a spirit. Paul doesn't say anything at all about man being a spirit. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said there's a huge difference between the Bible teaching something and someone inferring something. You've inferred that man is a spirit from this passage. The passage doesn't say any such thing. Maybe you're just misunderstanding the passage. Remember what Jesus said,

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
(Lk. 24:37-39 KJV)

Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Man has flesh and bone. Thus man cannot be a spirit. Maybe you're misunderstanding Paul.

I found it! This Brother explains it all and goes into great detail. It's worth the watch.

You didn't watch the animated video did you? Prolly wont watch this one either but he sure gives a lot of info here.

 

[Butch5]

Well how else could he have been there out of the body if it was not in spirit?

It could be an expression. It could be that God's spirit enveloped him as it did John on Patmos. Paul doesn't tell us what that is exactly so we can only guess. I suspect it's similar to what happened to John.

 

[Butch5]

I found it! This Brother explains it all and goes into great detail. It's worth the watch.

You didn't watch the animated video did you? Prolly wont watch this one either but he sure gives a lot of info here.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what we're discussing. I did notice that he said we like the comfortable. Could that be the case here? It's comfortable to just go on believing what we've always believed. It's uncomfortable to have our beliefs challenged and ultimately shown wrong. I wonder if that's why some fight so vehemently to hold a position that is refuted by Scripture.

 

[Butch5]

Well how else could he have been there out of the body if it was not in spirit?

In looking further I think the answer is right there in verse 1.

It is doubtless1 not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: (2 Cor. 12:1 NKJ)

This explains what he means by, whether in the body or out of it.

 

[Butch5]

I found it! This Brother explains it all and goes into great detail. It's worth the watch.

You didn't watch the animated video did you? Prolly wont watch this one either but he sure gives a lot of info here.

All I can say is, yeah, OK. You can stick with him. I'll stick with Scripture.

 

[Edward]

It could be an expression. It could be that God's spirit enveloped him as it did John on Patmos. Paul doesn't tell us what that is exactly so we can only guess. I suspect it's similar to what happened to John.

Uh-oh, now you're assuming things into the text like you said we shouldn't. ;)

 

[JLB]

You just keep jumping from passage to passage without ever addressing the problems with what you claim.

No problems. Just scripture.

If you want to believe the heresy of soul sleep, against what Jesus and Paul and John taught, that’s on you.




Who are these?


After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying:
“Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom,
Thanksgiving and honor and power and might,
Be to our God forever and ever.
Amen.”
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”
Revelation 7:9-17


So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
2 Corinthians 5:6-8

• We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Where is the Lord we are present with when we are absent from our body when we die?




JLB

 

[Edward]

I'm not sure what this has to do with what we're discussing. I did notice that he said we like the comfortable. Could that be the case here? It's comfortable to just go on believing what we've always believed. It's uncomfortable to have our beliefs challenged and ultimately shown wrong. I wonder if that's why some fight so vehemently to hold a position that is refuted by Scripture.

Huh? Which video are you talking about?

No, I'm not believing that man is a spirit because I'm comfortable with it or have always believed it. I have changed my views before by learning. I used to a be a hardcore Pre-trib believer in the rapture.

But I learned to be able to set aside my preconceptions and look very closely at others views...and somewhere on down the line, I now understand that the rapture can not be Pre-trib!