Life After Death???

[Lutz13]

BTW - "and every living soul in the sea" dying has to do with animal life - a case where the soul does die at the first death. No "second death" for animals.

But in the case of humans "The soul the sins IT shall die" Ezek 18 points to the soul that does NOT sin - LIVING because the context is the SECOND death - not the FIRST death.

Furthermore - in Matt 10:27 "Do NOT fear those who KILL the body but are UNNABLE to kill the SOUL" - that is to say that the soul survives the first death for humans -- albeit in a dormant state.

So Peter says in 2Peter 1 that his about to lay down this "earthly tent" this "earthly dwelling" -- he does not say "I am about to cease to exist". The dwelling is something he HAS - not something he IS. You see the same thing in 1Cor 15 and 2Cor 5 -- the earthly body, the earthly dwelling is something we HAVE not something we ARE.

in Christ,

Bob

Here is how I see it. The soul(dirt and Gods breath) who died will be in Gods memory. He will recreate that soul(person) from memory at the resurrection.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

...when you state that the antichrist "is in the church" - intimating that he is to be found within the .org of Catholicism - and when you do so in direct confutation of St John, you lay, by colour, an unsustainable charge to your brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. The antichrist may be in the church,

but in the guise of other than the Catholic pope; that said, one concedes that the next pope may fit the paradigm re antichrist, which St John established. [ed.jasd]

>>I'm amazed that you could be aware of SDA doctrines and still think that saying what I did is a "charge to" brothers and sisters in Christ.<<

Oh John317, if you would reread my post you would see that that is not what I said. I deliberately included in my above observation the word “colour” as a point of distinction. I cannot slur anyone’s mother with the invective “your mama!” – without all within her familial sphere being “coloured” by the slur – as well. That, analogously, applies to your catholic brothers and sisters – when Biblically unsubstantiated charges are assigned to the titular head of their .org – rather than, perhaps, assigned to other(s) more deserving of being charged with “antichrist”. Additionally,

I used both name and title as pertain Jesus [the] Christ.

>>The word "anti-christ" is indeed found only in the writings of Saint John, but that is not of any real importance.<<

Say what!? “...not of any real importance”? Then I am correct to have employed the phrase “doctrinal rote”, yes?

I daresay that St John established the parameters that define antichrist. There is nothing more remaining after that re antichrist – except a direct read or prejudiced construction.

>>What's important is that the concept is found also in the books of Daniel and in 2 Thess, as well as in other portions of Scripture. The antichrist is the same power as the little-horn power and the man of sin. These are all speaking of the same system or power that seeks to take the place of Christ and to stamp out the truth of the gospel.<<

The same as “the little-horn power” and “the man of sin”? By what finite measure other than dogmatic disposition? The measure that semblance translates to equivalent and similarity to identical?

Okay, let’s look at a few texts: antichrist (1 John 2:18; 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7). With the possible exception of 1 John 2:18, the referenced texts preceding provide us with descriptive features that point us to a multiplicity of antichrists – rather than the singularity of pope.

2 Thessaonians 2:3-8 apprises us of several things:

one, there will first be a ‘revolution’ before “that man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, “that Wicked” be revealed;

two, that there is a “he” who is presently letting/withstanding;

three, until such time as that “he” “be taken out of the way” – that person you reference will not be revealed;

four, that “man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, “that Wicked” will be consumed ‘by the brightness of the Lord’s coming’ – meaning that he is an ultimate protagonist upon the stage of man’s sad and passing drama, etc...

That “that man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, “that Wicked” will be revealed immediately prior to the Parousia.

For all we know it may be the Sunni’s Mehdi, the Shias’ twelfth Imam, Rebbe Lubavitch, Prince Charles, or other – mebbe, even other than human...

And per antichrist – given the sense of multiplicity inherent in the proffers of St John re antichrist, it may even be an entire people, albeit, a small people...

>>...to stamp out the truth of the gospel.<<

And which of the more than 30,000 Protesting .orgs and the multiples of sects and factions within the Catholic .org set forth truth, the absolute truth; that is, other than their agreement upon “Christ and Him crucified”?

>>I'd like to know how you arrive at the conclusion that the Pope cannot possibly be the antichrist.<<

As St John set forth the descriptive features whereby we might know whereof he spoke – he never once intimated that those descriptives (bulls, if you will :-) were actually proffered as pick and choose guidelines. They were given to you and me en toto; in other words, none of which might singularly either apply or not apply.

I believe it is self-evident that the pope both declares and worships Jesus Christ as Gd, having come in the flesh. That, of itself, should preclude agitated, fervent, or otherwise excited assertions that “the pope is the antichrist!”

>>It's fairly easily sustainable if a person is willing to look at history and at the books of Daniel and Rev.<<

Ah John317, you can read and understand Daniel 12:4 as well as any other honest expositor of Writ. Gd sealed the book – until such time... To reiterate formulae developed centuries into antiquity is not Biblically expository. Further, per the book of Revelation, well, you yourself have advanced theories re Josiah Litch that are only tangential to the facts. In other words, we all have much to study vis-à-vis Writ before

proposing, rather than too readily asserting... [/gulp, mea culpa]

I know that sometimes it is easier to set forth beliefs in the sense of absolute certainty; however, mostly it behooves us to assert less assuredly and more humbly – except upon the inarguable points – when we may shout!

Per histories...: I am well aware of what you, seemingly, only imply – and agree that Catholicism has done much that is reprehensible and ought to be thoroughly discredited for their unconscionable activities; moreover, I also agree that the RC has been as elliptical as the Protesting .orgs would have it. That, however, is not license to

fabricate – that we might satisfy dogma.

>>AS a matter of fact, there is no other power in history that fits all the characteristics (about 11 of them) the Bible gives us.<<

Sons of perdition, perhaps – but antichrist? ...not Biblically sustainable.

>>I have family who are Catholics.<<

As do I. Mormons, too...

[jasd]

>>What I say is not an attack on them because I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about a system of beliefs and doctrines.<<

You be talkin’ trash talk – like yo! lookee heah, “your mama!” Whas wi’dat? :-o

>>The Catholics I know aren't even aware of these things, and therefore God does not hold them accountable the way He would me if I gave my support to that system.<<

Umm, John317, Gd married Judah; nowhere, in spite of the fact that they worshipped Moloch, sacrificed their children to the fire, behaved so reprehensibly that Gd contrasted them vis-a-vis Sodom and Gomorrah favoring Sodom and Gomorrah; yet, we cannot find in Writ that Gd divorced Judah. That said,

no one is asking you to support Catholicism; however, to lay careless charges..., well, you do err.

>>As for doctrinal "rote," I can't help how it sounds to you. I am expressing what I believe after studying this issue intensely for over 35 years.<<

I called it “doctrinal rote” – because it reflects, simply, talking points – reiterated, reiterated, reiterated – without being squared with Writ. Okay, one cannot fault the qualifier “I believe.”

>>It may sound that way to you for all sorts of personal reasons.<<

...trying to keep it clinical, John317.

>>All I am saying is that there are very good, solid reasons, both biblical and historical, for believing what I am saying.<<

Not so, John317. You, in the above, recourse to sealed writings (though presently unsealed) reiterating wrested material developed centuries ago, a good half-millennium ago.

>>There was a time, as you know, when practically the entire Protestant world believe what I'm saying on this topic.<<

That “Protestant world” also believed, and still do, in Sunday worship; but you don’t – why?

>>Guess who and what changed-- not the Catholic church or the papacy, and certainly not the Bible or the facts of history.<<

Indeed, only discernment changes.

>>The books of Daniel and Revelation as well as the Gospels show that we can't expect that everyone who hears the Third Angels Messages will believe them or accept them. In fact, on the contrary, it tells us that very few can be expected to believe and put them into practice.<<

So, what you are saying is that Gd was fudging when He told Daniel to seal the book? And that this, that, or the other person has decrypted the book of Revelation? ...even, Josiah Litch?

>>If someone is unwilling to do that, they could conceivably have the truth taught to them year in and year out and they would not "hear" it even though they have good ears.<<

No need for self-recriminations there, John317 [/kidding]

>>Sadly and tragically they might even come to the point where they would laugh at it.<<

Nobody’s laughing John317.

>>But consider how many laughed at Noah, at Jesus and at Elijah and Elisha.<<

They laughed at Noah? Seriously, I missed that text. The above is extrapolated, yes? (welcome to my corner of the world) :-)

Mind you, I also am of the opinion that the antediluvians probably did laugh – but that they did laugh – is not found in Writ.

>>The Bible shows that majority of the people are wrong most of the time. You can't go by the numbers or by whether something is believed by many people.<<

I am a minority of one, John317

[Lutz13]

Quote:

So, what you are saying is that Gd was fudging when He told Daniel to seal the book? And that this, that, or the other person has decrypted the book of Revelation? ...even, Josiah Litch?

...Until the time of the end, when knowledge shall increase. It isn't a sealed book anymore.

http://danielbibleprophecy.org/daniel1.html

http://www.revelationbibleprophecy.org/revelation1.html

[BobRyan]

Here is how I see it. The soul(dirt and Gods breath) who died will be in Gods memory. He will recreate that soul(person) from memory at the resurrection.

To duplicate something is to make TWO somethings. It does not preserve ONE something.

God says that we have a body in 2 Cor 5 and 1Cor 15 --- it is something that we "have" not something that we "are". You have a car - but you are not a car. That means that He can give us a new one at any time (yes even at translation) and we are still the same "something".

But to be the same person - you have to preserve the person -- as in "I go that I may wake HIM" John 11. Not "I go that I may copy him" or "He no longer exists - so will just go make another copy". If you have a really good cookie cutter and well-mixed cookie dough - you can make one cookie -- eat it -- then make another cookie exactly like the first one. That's two cookies.

That is why Christ can say in Matt 10:27 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul".

in Christ,

Bob

[Planey]

With the exception of John317 and Robert alone, pretty much, there is enough produced in this thread so that my garden will remain well-nourished for some considerable time.

Graeme

[Gail]

With the exception of John317 and Robert alone, pretty much, there is enough produced in this thread so that my garden will remain well-nourished for some considerable time.

Graeme, you crack me up :)

[guibox]

John says he saw the souls of the martyrs under the altar, crying to God for vengeance on their murderers. That does not sound like unconsciousness to me. Isaiah says chiefs and kings in Sheol rise up and speak to the dead oppressor as he descends into Sheol. That doesn't sound like unconscious to me either. And there are many other texts to which I could refer, that depict souls of the dead as being somewhat conscious.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

John says he saw the souls of the martyrs under the altar, crying to God for vengeance on their murderers. That does not sound like unconsciousness to me. Isaiah says chiefs and kings in Sheol rise up and speak to the dead oppressor as he descends into Sheol. That doesn't sound like unconscious to me either. And there are many other texts to which I could refer, that depict souls of the dead as being somewhat conscious.

sailor,

First of all...nowhere is the word 'soul' meant in the bible to be translated as 'our disembodied, cogitating, emotional and thinking existence'. This cannot be proven culturally or linguistically.

Second, do you really want to base a theology around apocalyptic texts and metaphoric imagery? Look closely at the 'souls under the altar' and you will see the parallels to Abel's blood 'crying out to God'.

The 'souls under the altar' crying out for vengeance is symbolic of sacrifice. The parallels to Abel and to the sacrificial system are undeniable. The lives of these martyrs should not go unrevenged is the moral.

Do you really think there are millions of disembodied souls crammed underneath a literal altar?

I don't want to get into etymology of words here. I just want to communicate. I know the Bible uses "soul" in two different ways. One usage is a "person," as in "he became a living soul." The other usage means that which is left after death of the person. I am using the word "soul" to mean that part of the person which is left after death.

And I don't have to go to "Revelation" to find souls doing things which requires consciousness, as can be seen in the same paragraph you quoted. None of these souls in Sheol are alive. They are all dead.

I think I am probably talking about the breath of life which comes from God to each person. This is not just any breath. This breath which contains the spark of life, comes from God, and probably remains intact after the person is dead. I don't know, but I can speculate based on many scriptures, whereas people who say the dead know nothing are basing their speculation on a verse of scripture which is understood to mean how things are without God. Of course, without God, there is no life after death any time anywhere.

And the altar in "Revelation" is on the cosmic mountain. Never heard of it before? Well, the cosmic mountain is part of the ancient culture and literature(i.e. Bible). The cosmos of the ancient world consisted of the earth(picture a flat disk), upon which there was a mountain, and above which were the heavens, and below which were the waters of the underworld and Sheol, where the dead sleep. Anyone who is sleeping in Sheol is under the alter, which was on the cosmic mountain. So there is no cramming under the alter. Most everything which is not in the heavens of the cosmos is under the alter. It is a very big place. And of all the Bible texts which refer to the dead in Sheol speaking about this or that, I don't recall anyone complaining about being cramped or crammed.

Other references to the cosmic mountain include: Nebuchadnezzar's dream, at the end where the stone grinds the image to dust, and grows into a mountain; and the final battle, Armageddon, takes place on the cosmic mountain, Har mogaid. That's the way the ancient Hebrews pronounced the word which means mount of gathering. Armageddon has nothing to do with the valley of Megiddo. (just a side note)

So, History supports what I am saying in their culture, and if it is read carefully, the Bible does support what I am saying in the literature of their culture.

Please note, I am not saying we can talk to the dead, or that they can talk to us. Biblically, the dead know nothing about what is happening outside of Sheol. And I am certainly not saying the dead are zombies who could arise and terrorize the world, as they do in movies. No way, because the dead are so weak, their major activity is sleeping. And if there is any question about the implications of anything I have said concerning the dead, don't hesitate to ask. I will answer as best I can, but please do no attribute to me anything which I have not said, as many others have done.

[guibox]

I don't want to get into etymology of words here. I just want to communicate. I know the Bible uses "soul" in two different ways. One usage is a "person," as in "he became a living soul." The other usage means that which is left after death of the person. I am using the word "soul" to mean that part of the person which is left after death.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

My post about the dangers of belief in the immortality of soul merely summarizes the problems involved in it and isn't directed at any one individual.

The same dangers would face me, too, if I started believing that the dead are conscious and can contact the living. So it isn't intended as a personal criticism, and certainly not an accusation, of anyone.

John says he saw the souls of the martyrs under the altar, crying to God for vengeance on their murderers. That does not sound like unconsciousness to me.

You have to decide if the book of Revelation is a book where all things are to be taken literally or whether it is a book in which the messages were put in signs and symbols.

For instance, we don't believe that the beasts of Rev. 13 are literal beasts. We don't believe that Christ literally has a sword coming out of his mouth, etc.

Do we then believe that the dead are literally under the altar? Are they literally crying for vengeance? Or would the righteous dead-- if described literally-- more likely be crying for God to save those wicked people? Wouldn't they be doing what Christ did-- and pray that God would forgive them and work to bring them to repentance and salvation?

Virtually all commentators on Revelation take the view that this portrayal of souls is a symbolic one, not literal. And for good reason.

Consider if you will-- as guibox has done well to already mention-- the blood of Abel that is portrayed as crying from the ground to God. Gen. 4: 10. Is that literal? Doesn't that sound like the blood is conscious?

I believe the evidence is that both are poetic, metaphoric uses of language.

[John317]

... God Himself taught object lessons using a parable which had a dead rich man speaking from the grave. Unconscious? Not there.

A parable is not true in all of its various aspects and is not intended to be taken literally. The only thing that is true in a parable is the lesson it was intended to teach.

If we try to interpret the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man as a literal view of what happens when a man dies, we will be in some real trouble. Try it. You will have people being carried physically by angels to hell and to Abraham's chest. You will notice in that parable not a single mention of "souls." You will notice that the dead in hell have eyes and fingers and tongues, etc. You will notice that they can talk to, and see, the dead who are in Abraham's bosom. You will notice that the righteous dead are taken to Abraham and not to the alter in heaven. They are disembodied souls in heaven, according Revelation, but according to Jesus' parable, the dead are physically in the bosom of Abraham, not as souls merely but as bodies with eyes and fingers.

Is that what you want to accept as your guide for belief in what happens when people die?

Quote:

Now tell me, where is the danger in believing that souls of the dead are sleeping in Sheol awaiting resurrection?

Having said this, I would advise, do not try to contact any soul of the dead. God strictly forbids doing that. And do not be deceived, the souls of the dead are sleeping, and will never try to contact anyone who is living. But I believe we must acknowledge that God can awaken the dead, and have them deliver a message, if He wants to do so.

Here is the problem: you have just said that God forbids us to contact the dead. OK, fine. But what if I am desperate to find out something from the dead, and I am like Saul, willing to violate God's will in order to communicate with the dead?

Millions do this very thing. They believe it is worth their while to take the chance that God will allow the dead to talk with the living. So they go to witches and others who can assist communication with the dead.

Problem is that since they believe the dead can communicate with the living, they do not realize that the dead are really devils.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. The false teaching still opens them up to dangerous deception.

I wouldn't do that because I know any contact with "the dead" is actually talking to a lying Devil.

[John317]

This breath which contains the spark of life, comes from God, and probably remains intact after the person is dead. I don't know, but I can speculate based on many scriptures, whereas people who say the dead know nothing are basing their speculation on a verse of scripture which is understood to mean how things are without God. Of course, without God, there is no life after death any time anywhere.

And the altar in "Revelation" is on the cosmic mountain. Never heard of it before? Well, the cosmic mountain is part of the ancient culture and literature(i.e. Bible). The cosmos of the ancient world consisted of the earth(picture a flat disk), upon which there was a mountain, and above which were the heavens, and below which were the waters of the underworld and Sheol, where the dead sleep. Anyone who is sleeping in Sheol is under the alter, which was on the cosmic mountain. So there is no cramming under the alter.

Do we want to base our belief on an obviously symbolic statement in Rev. about souls under an alter, and dismiss a plain statements in the book of Ecc.? Remember that there are dozens of other plain statements that completely agree with Ecc. 9: 5. It is best to go by the plain statements. For instance, "The dead do not praise the Lord." It also says plainly that when a person dies, all their thoughts perish. That is about as straight a statement as anyone can utter. And the devil plainly contradicted God in the matter of death. This should get our attention!

If the dead really are alive and conscious and able to communicate with God and with the living-- then that means the Bible contains two different, contradictory views of what constitutes man and of what happens when we die.

It would also mean that God flat-out lied in the Garden of Eden and Satan did us a favor by telling us the truth. It would mean that Adam never actually died like God said he would. Death, then, is not a matter of going into the grave as God said, but instead death is a door into another plane of life. In death, therefore, there is the opportunity to become more knowledgeable and more like God. The dead can tell the living things that only God would know-- the future. Is that not what happened in 1 Sam. 28?

I'd like to appeal to you to consider the evidence presented in The Great Controversy, pp. 511-562. I think the evidence is pretty compelling. What do you think?

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc34.html

[John317]

Please note, I am not saying we can talk to the dead, or that they can talk to us. Biblically, the dead know nothing about what is happening outside of Sheol.

Then what happened in the case of Samuel and the witch of Endor, if we take that story to mean that the dead prophet of God told Saul much that was happening outside of Sheol-- and not only what was happening but what WAS GOING TO happen in the future?

[jasd]

>>"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:" --Rev 6:9

If you are taking that as literal.<<

What then must one make of

/ the “24 elders” of Revelation 5:9 (regardless, the mistranslations re ‘us/them’)?

/ The “great multitude” of Rev 7:9?

/ The “144,000” of Revelation 14:1?

/ “Those upon the sea of glass” in Revelation 15:2?

/ The “much people” of Revelation 19:1?

and, those whom Gd will bring with Him in the Parousia?

Let us not be overcome of simple ‘rote’...

>>Was there also a huge Pale horse running around murdering people and creatures of the earth? It is a metaphor my friend.<<

Was it a “Pale horse running around murdering people...” or was it the one who sat upon that Pale horse?

Why must the Pale horse be a metaphor? I think that should one assign “metaphor” to everything in the book of Revelation – he or she might do well, instead, to exegete Aesop. Having said that

what would a metaphoric ‘Chartreuse horse’ represent in your Biblical view?

It seems more true to the written word of Gd that we take as figurative only that which cannot be read as literal... else, we fall prey to those who make merchandise of us.

>>...Until the time of the end, when knowledge shall increase. It isn't a sealed book anymore.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Not so, John317. You, in the above, recourse to sealed writings (though presently unsealed) reiterating wrested material developed centuries ago, a good half-millennium ago. [ed.jasd]

[jasd]

>>With the exception of John317 and Robert alone, pretty much, there is enough produced in this thread so that my garden will remain well-nourished for some considerable time.<<

Perhaps, Planey, rather than with the gratuitous self-flagellation,

you’ll attempt to address the specifics of this thread with either contradiction or contribution, yes? Difficult? Ah well,

like this like that...

Good grief.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

Please note, I am not saying we can talk to the dead, or that they can talk to us. Biblically, the dead know nothing about what is happening outside of Sheol.

Then what happened in the case of Samuel and the witch of Endor, if we take that story to mean that the dead prophet of God told Saul much that was happening outside of Sheol-- and not only what was happening but what WAS GOING TO happen in the future?

Yes, but Samuel was a prophet of God. And it was not a good thing even then. It may have been an evil spirit who appeared to the witch of Endor. But the thing is, she was used to seeing evil spirits, and wouldn't have been frightened if her familiar evil spirit showed up. No, I think it was Samuel.

BTW, I would like to learn the ancient Hebrew's holistic ideas on death. Please share this knowledge.

[jasd]

>>First of all...nowhere is the word 'soul' meant in the bible to be translated as 'our disembodied, cogitating, emotional and thinking existence'.<<

Perhaps that is why Gd distinguishes between soul and spirit, yes?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit (#4151 pneuma; ...the rational soul, vital principle, mental disposition ...)

Do you believe that Jesus Christ should have more better cried, “Father, into they hands I commend my soul” – rather than, “...I commend my spirit”?

>>This cannot be proven culturally or linguistically.<<

So, then, what is this thing called spirit?

From a previous page:

Gen 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. … v17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. v18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,…

Prov 20:27 The spirit of man [is] the candle {#5216} of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

candle: Strong’s #5216. … nerah, nay-raw; from a prim. Root [see #5214; #5135] prop. Mean. to glisten; a lamp (i.e. the burner) or light (lit. or fig.):--candle, lamp, light.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Then what happened in the case of Samuel and the witch of Endor, if we take that story to mean that the dead prophet of God told Saul much that was happening outside of Sheol-- and not only what was happening but what WAS GOING TO happen in the future?

Yes, but Samuel was a prophet of God. And it was not a good thing even then. [/quote']

Samuel could only have known the future if God revealed it to him. Otherwise prophets know no more than any other person. So this would mean that God raised up Samuel for the purpose of talking to Saul. This, in turn, would mean God changed His mind, because before this, God would not communicate with Saul by any means. Saul even complains of the fact that God ignored him. Compare 1 Sam. 28: 6, 15; 1 Samuel 15.

It is true it was not a good thing. But if it was not a good thing, surely God knew it wasn't, and therefore it seems highly unlikely that our wise God would send the spirit of His prophet to talk to Saul. God had total control over this situation-- that is, if we assume for the sake of "argument" that it was really the spirit of His prophet.

Quote:

It may have been an evil spirit who appeared to the witch of Endor. But the thing is, she was used to seeing evil spirits, and wouldn't have been frightened if her familiar evil spirit showed up. No, I think it was Samuel.

If it was the devil or one of his fallen angels, there can be no doubt that the evil angels have the ability to deceive even a very experienced witch. We are no match for Satan.

Notice the spirit came up out of the earth, not down from heaven, and Samuel complains of being "brought up," not from being brought down.

Quote:

BTW, I would like to learn the ancient Hebrew's holistic ideas on death. Please share this knowledge.

I hope these two links will help as starters--

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/World%20Evangelical/Kis,%20Human%20Nature%20&%20Destiny.pdf

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/soultalk.htm

http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=329&journal=1&type=pdf

[oldsailor29]

Samuel could only have known the future if God revealed it to him. Otherwise prophets know no more than any other person. So this would mean that God raised up Samuel for the purpose of talking to Saul. This, in turn, would mean God changed His mind, because before this, God would not communicate with Saul by any means. Saul even complains of the fact that God ignored him. Compare 1 Sam. 28: 6, 15; 1 Samuel 15.

[Planey]

>>With the exception of John317 and Robert alone, pretty much, there is enough produced in this thread so that my garden will remain well-nourished for some considerable time.<<

Perhaps, Planey, rather than with the gratuitous self-flagellation,

you’ll attempt to address the specifics of this thread with either contradiction or contribution, yes? Difficult? Ah well,

like this like that...

Good grief.

Your point is well taken, jasd. I should try to contribute something well-considered and well-documented to the discussion.

However I always keep in mind the adage "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Graeme

PS

You should also be careful jasd as you are not exempt from making the occasional contribution to the bovis fimus.

[oldsailor29]

I hope this will help as a starter--

http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=329&journal=1&type=pdf

Thank You John for sharing that essay. I think it basically says that the ancient Godly people believed in physical resurrection, and of course they believed in God's power to heal and restore. This means they knew that the physical body turned to dust after death. And believe me, I do get the part about the brain being part of the physical body, and as such, also becomes dust. I don't think ancient people got that part. So the question is, how can there be consciousness without a brain? Good question. I don't see how it is possible. So, I have to change my mind on this subject, and say that the dead only live in memory, until resurrection.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

I hope this will help as a starter--

http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=329&journal=1&type=pdf

Thank You John for sharing that essay. I think it basically says that the ancient Godly people believed in physical resurrection, and of course they believed in God's power to heal and restore. This means they knew that the physical body turned to dust after death. And believe me, I do get the part about the brain being part of the physical body, and as such, also becomes dust. I don't think ancient people got that part. So the question is, how can there be consciousness without a brain? Good question. I don't see how it is possible. So, I have to change my mind on this subject, and say that the dead only live in memory, until resurrection.

It is good to meet a mind that is willing to change. :-)

Mark

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

Thank You John for sharing that essay. I think it basically says that the ancient Godly people believed in physical resurrection, and of course they believed in God's power to heal and restore. This means they knew that the physical body turned to dust after death. And believe me, I do get the part about the brain being part of the physical body, and as such, also becomes dust. I don't think ancient people got that part. So the question is, how can there be consciousness without a brain? Good question. I don't see how it is possible. So, I have to change my mind on this subject, and say that the dead only live in memory, until resurrection.

It is good to meet a mind that is willing to change. :-)

Mark

I still believe that exegetically the Bible supports consciouness after death, but now it seems to me that it must be in error. I know the proof texts people use, claiming the Bible says the dead are unconscious, but those texts are well answered and far outnumbered by contradictory texts. So, since I now want to say the dead are unconscious, I have to say the Bible is wrong about it.

I have no problem with that. It is seen in EGWs vision in "Life Sketches" chapter xxx. The road up the side of that mountain keeps getting more and more narrow, and this is symbolic of less and less dependence on the Bible. At he end of that road, the travelers on the narrow way find that the only thing they can depend on is Jesus.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It is good to meet a mind that is willing to change. :-)

Mark [/quote']

I still believe that exegetically the Bible supports consciouness after death, but now it seems to me that it must be in error. I know the proof texts people use, claiming the Bible says the dead are unconscious, but those texts are well answered and far outnumbered by contradictory texts. So, since I now want to say the dead are unconscious, I have to say the Bible is wrong about it.

I have no problem with that. It is seen in EGWs vision in "Life Sketches" chapter xxx. The road up the side of that mountain keeps getting more and more narrow, and this is symbolic of less and less dependence on the Bible. At he end of that road, the travelers on the narrow way find that the only thing they can depend on is Jesus.

Let's suppose you wanted to give someone a Bible study from the point of view that the dead are conscious after death.

What are the main verses you would use? A good Bible study has anywhere between 10 and 20 Bible verses. What are the clearest verses you think teach the immortality of the soul and the consciousness of the dead?