What is a man?

[Avigdor]

The only one I see that could have to do with an afterlife is John 14. But in that passage Jesus said He would come back so that they could be with Him. He didn't say they were going where He was. He said He would come back so that they could be with Him. In the previous chapter He had just told them that where He was going they couldn't go.

33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (Jn. 13:33-34 KJV)

Butch5
Matt. 17; 1-8 This is the transfiguration. Moses and Elijah were there. They weren't dead.

 

[Avigdor]

The title of the thread is "What is a man"? The post came from another thread that was dealing with a slightly different subject. I didn't try to prove what happens at death based on Gen 2:7. That shows what a man is. There a plenty of passages that support this position in the Scriptures. There are also plenty of passages that show when a man is dead, he is dead.

I don't know where the interpretation came from, however, that's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it's correct.

Butch 5
There is also the statement of Jesus to the theif who hung on a cross beside Him. "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." And we know Jesus is alive.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5
Matt. 17; 1-8 This is the transfiguration. Moses and Elijah were there. They weren't dead.

If you read that passage in Mathew you'll see that Jesus said it was a vision. Peter refers to it as Christ's second coming. I surely couldn't literally be the second coming if Jesus hadn't yet left from the first coming.

 

[Butch5]

Butch 5
There is also the statement of Jesus to the theif who hung on a cross beside Him. "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." And we know Jesus is alive.

The comma is in the wrong place. There is no punctuation in the original text. It was added by the translators. It should read, truly, truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise. Jesus didn't go to Paradise that day. He was crucified and laid in the tomb. He was alive three days later when He was resurrected.

 

[Avigdor]

The comma is in the wrong place. There is no punctuation in the original text. It was added by the translators. It should read, truly, truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise. Jesus didn't go to Paradise that day. He was crucified and laid in the tomb. He was alive three days later when He was resurrected.

I put no comma in it!? There are a lot of things we don't know but I believe Jesus and I believe He said what He meant to say, and that He spoke the truth. I don't need to pick apart the details. If He said He would be in Paradise that day, then He was. His body laid in a tomb (like ours lays in a grave when we die) and His life came back into His body, but He, according to Him, was in Paradise. Kind of goes back to what I said in the first place. He was alive in Paradise, as was the thief, after He died.

 

[Avigdor]

If you read that passage in Mathew you'll see that Jesus said it was a vision.

No it doesn't. Not in my Bible. Do you just want to argue?

 

[Butch5]

No it doesn't. Not in my Bible. Do you just want to argue?

You replied to my post. It's seems your the one who wants to argue.

Yes, it does.

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. (Matt. 17:9 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

I put no comma in it!? There are a lot of things we don't know but I believe Jesus and I believe He said what He meant to say, and that He spoke the truth. I don't need to pick apart the details. If He said He would be in Paradise that day, then He was. His body laid in a tomb (like ours lays in a grave when we die) and His life came back into His body, but He, according to Him, was in Paradise. Kind of goes back to what I said in the first place. He was alive in Paradise, as was the thief, after He died.

The translators did. Jesus didn't say He'd be in paradise that day. He told the thief that day that he would be with Jesus in Paradise. They weren't in Paradise that day. Jesus was in the tomb. According to the Scriptures Jesus died on the cross. He was dead until He was resurrected 3 days later.

The thief asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His kingdom. He didn't come into the Kingdom that day.

 

[Avigdor]

The translators did. Jesus didn't say He'd be in paradise that day. He told the thief that day that he would be with Jesus in Paradise. They weren't in Paradise that day. Jesus was in the tomb. According to the Scriptures Jesus died on the cross. He was dead until He was resurrected 3 days later.

The thief asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His kingdom. He didn't come into the Kingdom that day.

"Truly I say to you,TODAY you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus's body died, like all the sons of men, but according to this, He went to Paradise. His body after three days was resurrected. I used this example in response to your suggestion that when we are dead we are dead, until the resurrection of the dead. This shows to me that we are not. Jesus said the thief would be in Paradise that day.

 

[Avigdor]

You replied to my post. It's seems your the one who wants to argue.

Yes, it does.

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. (Matt. 17:9 KJV)

I concede that in verse 9, Jesus refers to the incident as a vision.
Strongs Concordance: 3705 "from 3708 something gazed at, i.e. a spectacle (esp. supernatural): sight, vision."
3708 "prop. to stare at(comp. 3700), i.e. (by impl.) to discern clearly----"
3700 "to gaze(i.e. with wide open eyes as at something remarkable----"
I know that we must be careful when using a concordance to not apply all the possible meanings listed to any given passage. We need to discern from context. However it is also true that we should check to make sure we are not considering only our modern day interpretation of a word.
Even if we in this incidence land on "esp, supernatural", that does not mean it wasn't real. Even if real, it was supernatural. The definite phrasing of the event , that Moses and Elijah appeared and were talking to a transfigured Jesus etc. suggests to me that they were really there.

 

[Butch5]

"Truly I say to you,TODAY you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus's body died, like all the sons of men, but according to this, He went to Paradise. His body after three days was resurrected. I used this example in response to your suggestion that when we are dead we are dead, until the resurrection of the dead. This shows to me that we are not. Jesus said the thief would be in Paradise that day.

I know what you're saying, but that can't be. As I said, there is no comma in the original text. The passage can be understood two ways.

And Jesus said to him Assuredly I say to you / today you will be with Me in Paradise.

Or it could be understood this way

And Jesus said to him Assuredly I say to you today / you will be with Me in Paradise.

I submit that the latter is the correct understanding. There are multiple reasons why.

1.Jesus didn't go to Paradise that day, He went to the tomb.
2.The thief wasn't asking where he'd be later that day.
3.The passage doesn't say either of them were alive later that day.
4.They died
5.When Jesus spoke of Paradise He was referring to the kingdom, that was the thief's request, to be remembered in the kingdom. So, Paradise must refer to the Kingdom.

There is nothing in this text to indicate that Jesus was alive with the thief in paradise that day. One must bring that idea to the text. You see it's really circular reasoning or begging the question. It goes like this. One comes to the text with the belief that people live on after death. They read that Jesus and the thief would be in Paradise that day. So, see that proves that people are alive after they die. But, you see, there's really no proof here. The person has just reaffirmed their premise. They begin with the belief that people are alive after death and they use that belief to filter the passage and they reaffirm what they already believe. There is nothing in this passage that says they were alive later on. The passage even tell us that they died.

 

[Avigdor]

I know what you're saying, but that can't be. As I said, there is no comma in the original text. The passage can be understood two ways.

And Jesus said to him Assuredly I say to you / today you will be with Me in Paradise.

Or it could be understood this way

And Jesus said to him Assuredly I say to you today / you will be with Me in Paradise.

I submit that the latter is the correct understanding. There are multiple reasons why.

1.Jesus didn't go to Paradise that day, He went to the tomb.
2.The thief wasn't asking where he'd be later that day.
3.The passage doesn't say either of them were alive later that day.
4.They died
5.When Jesus spoke of Paradise He was referring to the kingdom, that was the thief's request, to be remembered in the kingdom. So, Paradise must refer to the Kingdom.

There is nothing in this text to indicate that Jesus was alive with the thief in paradise that day. One must bring that idea to the text. You see it's really circular reasoning or begging the question. It goes like this. One comes to the text with the belief that people live on after death. They read that Jesus and the thief would be in Paradise that day. So, see that proves that people are alive after they die. But, you see, there's really no proof here. The person has just reaffirmed their premise. They begin with the belief that people are alive after death and they use that belief to filter the passage and they reaffirm what they already believe. There is nothing in this passage that says they were alive later on. The passage even tell us that they died.

And I see what you are saying. Disagree of course, but that is not relevant, and you did give it thought and study. And, you may be right. Truthfully I don't know.
It is very true that we bring our own filters to the Bible. Also true that I might be doing that and equally true that you might. I guess we will both know some day.
The fact that the Bible says nothing about Jesus and the thief being alive in Paradise though does not prove that they weren't. There are more things that the Bible doesn't tell us than what it does, I'm sure, God being God. It tells us what we need to know the Godhead and salvation. Scripture is notably silent on the specifics of what happens when we die (for God's own good reason) but all implication, in my opinion, is that we are alive but our body is dead.

 

[Butch5]

I concede that in verse 9, Jesus refers to the incident as a vision.
Strongs Concordance: 3705 "from 3708 something gazed at, i.e. a spectacle (esp. supernatural): sight, vision."
3708 "prop. to stare at(comp. 3700), i.e. (by impl.) to discern clearly----"
3700 "to gaze(i.e. with wide open eyes as at something remarkable----"
I know that we must be careful when using a concordance to not apply all the possible meanings listed to any given passage. We need to discern from context. However it is also true that we should check to make sure we are not considering only our modern day interpretation of a word.
Even if we in this incidence land on "esp, supernatural", that does not mean it wasn't real. Even if real, it was supernatural. The definite phrasing of the event , that Moses and Elijah appeared and were talking to a transfigured Jesus etc. suggests to me that they were really there.

I'm not relying on the modern definition of vision. As I stated, Peter indicates that it was the second coming of Christ.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Pet. 1:16-18 KJV)

Long after Jesus' crucifixion Peter refers to this event as the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. We know that His first coming wasn't in power. We know that His second one will be. Jesus was alive when the event took place. How could it have been His literal second coming when He was still hadn't departed the first?

We're also told that Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in glory. What does that mean, in glory?

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:40-44 KJV)

So here, according to Paul the body is resurrected, in glory. Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in glory. They appeared resurrected. Paul also said that Jesus was the first born from the dead.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (1 Cor. 15:20 KJV)

Jesus too tells us this,

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Rev. 1:5 KJV)

If Jesus is the first born of the dead, how can Moses and Elijah have been resurrected before Jesus died? They couldn't have. The only thing that makes sense is that it was a vision just as Jesus said it was. Yes, Peter, James, and John, saw it. Was it really the resurrected Moses and Elijah? I couldn't have been.

You see, the reason these appear to be alive to you is based on the presuppositions you bring to the text. I know, there was a time when I would have made the same arguments you are making. However, I've changed my presuppositions. That's where the title of this thread comes from. "What is a man" I used to believe that man was a soul and/or spirit that lived in a flesh body and continued on after death. However, upon closer scrutiny and more in depth study of the Scriptures I've since come to understand that that is not what a man is. The presupposition of what a man is changes how one sees these passages.

To claim that the dead live on after death one must first establish that a man can live apart from the body. I don't believe one could do that from Scripture.

 

[Butch5]

And I see what you are saying. Disagree of course, but that is not relevant, and you did give it thought and study. And, you may be right. Truthfully I don't know.
It is very true that we bring our own filters to the Bible. Also true that I might be doing that and equally true that you might. I guess we will both know some day.
The fact that the Bible says nothing about Jesus and the thief being alive in Paradise though does not prove that they weren't. There are more things that the Bible doesn't tell us than what it does, I'm sure, God being God. It tells us what we need to know the Godhead and salvation. Scripture is notably silent on the specifics of what happens when we die (for God's own good reason) but all implication, in my opinion, is that we are alive but our body is dead.

I have. I have studied this subject literally for years. I have debated it for years. I've gone over the passages time and time again, Lazarus and the Rich Man, the souls under the altar, Paul's statement about being absent from the body, the thief on the cross, Saul and Samuel, and so on. I've looked at these passage in depth. When necessary I've gone back to the original languages. I haven't come to this position lightly. There has been a lot of time invested in getting here.

You said, "The fact that the Bible says nothing about Jesus and the thief being alive in Paradise though does not prove that they weren't. " I agree wholeheartedly. However, my point was to show that the passage doesn't prove they were alive.

Actually, I'd submit that the Bible isn't silent one what happens when we die. I think it gets confusing because there are so many idea injected into the discussion that aren't Biblical. Most Christians are taught what Christianity is before they ever read the Bible. So, their preconceptions have already been formed before they meet the text. When these preconceptions don't align with Scripture people have to try to make it work. That's where the problems come in. For instance,

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. (Eccl. 9:5 KJV)

Often when people read this they run into a problem. If one believes that the dead live on, this presents a problem. Solomon said the dead know nothing. Many, if not most, Christians believe they live on after death. How could they know nothing and be in Heaven with Jesus. Solution: it's the body that dies, the soul/spirit lives on. But, Solomon didn't say, the dead body knows nothing. He said the dead know nothing. He is speaking of a class of people who are called the dead. It has nothing to do with the body. So people have to either sweep it under the rug, pretend it doesn't say what it says, or challenge their beliefs. I find the latter doesn't happen often. Here's another,

His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:4 KJV)

Here the Psalmist says that when man dies his thoughts perish that very day. Again, this presents a problem for many who believe that man lives on. How is one in Heaven with Jesus when his very thoughts have perished?

There are plenty of passages that tell us what happens when man dies, they just don't fit with what many, if not most, Christians believe. They don't fit the idea that man lives on after death as a disembodied consciousness. They say man is dead.

 

[Avigdor]

I'm not relying on the modern definition of vision. As I stated, Peter indicates that it was the second coming of Christ.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Pet. 1:16-18 KJV)

Not quibling with your interpretation, but for me, reading the plain words, and without bias, I have not now or ever seen this as Peter saying that the transfiguration was the SEcond Coming. If that was what he was saying, then he would have been wrong, and therefore we could not trust the Bible as being the word of God. And maybe I am just not understanding what you are saying.

 

[Avigdor]

If Jesus is the first born of the dead, how can Moses and Elijah have been resurrected before Jesus died? They couldn't have. The only thing that makes sense is that it was a vision just as Jesus said it was. Yes, Peter, James, and John, saw it. Was it really the resurrected Moses and Elijah? I couldn't have been.

Their bodies weren't yet resurrected from the dead. This text shows that they were still alive and existed even though their bodies were and still are in the grave. (This is me reading it without bias or presupposition!) Jesus's body was the first resurrected body.
Eph. 1;4 "----even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world-----"
We had life in some way, even before we were born, even if we only existed in God's mind. In any case it is all speculation and not relevant to our salvation. We will know when we get there.
And yes, the Bible talks a great deal about life and death, it is after all revealing to us Heaven and Hell and our need of a Savior. I said it gave few if any specifics of what happens immediately upon the death of our body. That expression that we have a soul and a spirit and live in a body, is in my opinion erroneous. We are a whole. The body is just as much us as the soul and spirit, which are probably the same as they are used interchangeably. Why else would our bodies be resurrected? In the beginning, none of our being including our body was meant to die. The body dies now of necessity, because of our fallen condition.

 

[Butch5]

Not quibling with your interpretation, but for me, reading the plain words, and without bias, I have not now or ever seen this as Peter saying that the transfiguration was the SEcond Coming. If that was what he was saying, then he would have been wrong, and therefore we could not trust the Bible as being the word of God. And maybe I am just not understanding what you are saying.

He said they saw the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when they were with Him on the Holy Mount. He says they saw His majesty, He speaks of the voice they heard "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". When Jesus came the first time it wasn't with power and majesty. I don't know what else one could see this as. Even before the event Jesus said some of those standing there would not die until they saw the Lord coming in His kingdom.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:28 KJV)

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. (Lk. 9:27 KJV)

Both Mathew and Luke make these statements and immediately relate the account of the transfiguration. So, what they saw was the Kingdom.

 

[Butch5]

Their bodies weren't yet resurrected from the dead. This text shows that they were still alive and existed even though their bodies were and still are in the grave. (This is me reading it without bias or presupposition!) Jesus's body was the first resurrected body.
Eph. 1;4 "----even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world-----"
We had life in some way, even before we were born, even if we only existed in God's mind. In any case it is all speculation and not relevant to our salvation. We will know when we get there.
And yes, the Bible talks a great deal about life and death, it is after all revealing to us Heaven and Hell and our need of a Savior. I said it gave few if any specifics of what happens immediately upon the death of our body. That expression that we have a soul and a spirit and live in a body, is in my opinion erroneous. We are a whole. The body is just as much us as the soul and spirit, which are probably the same as they are used interchangeably. Why else would our bodies be resurrected? In the beginning, none of our being including our body was meant to die. The body dies now of necessity, because of our fallen condition.

I would submit that you are reading the text with a presupposition. We have to it can't really be avoided. It's just which presupposition are we using. We have to believe something. Presuppositions are just the things we believe. For instance, if every time you sit on a a chair it supports your weight, the next time you go to sit on it, you going to presuppose that it will support you. However if half of the time you sit on a chair it falls apart you're not just going to presuppose that it will support you. next time So, our presuppositions are based on our experiences.

Let me present this. Take the presupposition that when a man dies he is dead and no part of him is alive. So, believing that, how would you interpret the transfiguration?

I agree with you that man is a whole and not a disembodied consciousness. What I find in Scripture is that man consists of the dust of the earth. That God breathed His breath of life into the man, and the man became a living soul. So, the man consists of the elements of the earth. He is infused with something of God, the breath of life, and these two together form a living soul. So, when a man dies, the breath of life which is a part of God, returns to Him, the body returns to dust and the soul that consisted of the body and the breath of God ceases to exist since it's two components have separated.
I base this one Gen 2:7 where Moses recorded the creation of man.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

 

[Avigdor]

I would submit that you are reading the text with a presupposition. We have to it can't really be avoided. It's just which presupposition are we using. We have to believe something. Presuppositions are just the things we believe. For instance, if every time you sit on a a chair it supports your weight, the next time you go to sit on it, you going to presuppose that it will support you. However if half of the time you sit on a chair it falls apart you're not just going to presuppose that it will support you. next time So, our presuppositions are based on our experiences.

I have the feeling that as long as I disagree with your presupposition of these passages, you will tell me that I am presupposing my beliefs into my interpretation. Which of course is something you couldn't possibly know as you can't get inside my head. BTW I know what the word means, no need to define it for me as though my intelligence isn't up to yours.
Once again, and you might as well believe me since I am the only one who knows, I did not interpret the scripture through my presuppositions. I didn't have any, other than what it always seemed to say to me the first time I read it, with no presuppositions. I compare scripture with scripture to arrive at what I believe.

 

[Avigdor]

Let me present this. Take the presupposition that when a man dies he is dead and no part of him is alive. So, believing that, how would you interpret the transfiguration?

So it is you doing all the presupposing. LOL If I did presuppose that, that when we aredead we are dead, when I read this scripture I would change my mind about my presupposition.