Is death just another life?

Derf

Well-known member
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.



why do you ignore "eat" to define the time duration ?
I don't think I have, since "eat" isn't a time word, it's an action that the time words are addressing. The other is "die". Both occur "in the [same] day", which is what we should be attmpting to define. Do you agree?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
I don't think I have, since "eat" isn't a time word,
in this case it defines when Adam and Eve died , when they ate
it's an action that the time words are addressing. The other is "die". Both occur "in the [same] day", which is what we should be attmpting to define.
when is someone guilty of sin , they day they do it or some later date

Do you agree?
it wasn't just any arbitrary day it was the only day they would die
 

Derf

Well-known member
in this case it defines when Adam and Eve died , when they ate
Agreed..."in the [same] day"
when is someone guilty of sin , they day they do it or some later date
Not sure why this is important, but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin. They are still guilty days, months, years later. Punishment may or may not occur at some later date.
it wasn't just any arbitrary day it was the only day they would die
Never said it was arbitrary, but your statement should end with, "it was the only day they would die in," if you want to actually discuss the passage. Our discussion is around the meaning of "in the day". Now, can you give me a definition of "in the day" that holds true for both uses of "in the day" in Gen 2? Please go read Gen 2, paying extra attention to the two uses of the phrase "in the day" before you answer.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Agreed..."in the [same] day"

Not sure why this is important, but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin. They are still guilty days, months, years later. Punishment may or may not occur at some later date.
sin causes death right away
(Romans 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


Never said it was arbitrary, but your statement should end with, "it was the only day they would die in," if you want to actually discuss the passage. Our discussion is around the meaning of "in the day". Now, can you give me a definition of "in the day" that holds true for both uses of "in the day" in Gen 2? Please go read Gen 2, paying extra attention to the two uses of the phrase "in the day" before you answer.
back "in the day" we learned to split atoms and created nuclear bombs nuclear power plants nuclear subs
and "in the day" they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima On 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 129,000 people

look I used "in the day" in they same sentence with different duration

your eisegesis of Gen 2:17 is wrong

God created everything on day one then formed everything on days 2-6
"in the day" here means one day , not that it matters verse 17 stands on it's own
(Genesis 2:4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
.
eating took mere minutes and seperated them from God immediately which is the death God warned them about
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

Derf

Well-known member
Fantastic post, way 2 go! You actually answered my questions. I don't agree with your answer, but it was well worded.

sin causes death right away
(Romans 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Can you tell me how sin could "revive" in someone? Can something "revive" that has never been alive? So sin must have been alive in him already, and had died in some way, don't you think? If that's true, then how does the commandment coming revive sin? The only way I know of for sin to die in us is for us to die to sin...for us to be crucified with Christ.
back "in the day" we learned to split atoms and created nuclear bombs nuclear power plants nuclear subs
and "in the day" they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima On 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 129,000 people

look I used "in the day" in they same sentence with different duration
Yes, you did. That's a good way to show one correct use and one incorrect use of "in the day". Nobody uses that second form. We always use "on the day" when talking about a particular day. You even do it when you when you begin the second sentence with "On 6 August..." and while you dropped the period after Hiroshima, you retained the capitalization of "on". We don't use "in the day" to mean the same thing as "on the day".
your eisegesis of Gen 2:17 is wrong
Maybe, but I've shown yours to be wrong, while you've actually shown mine to be possible.
God created everything on day one then formed everything on days 2-6
"in the day" here means one day , not that it matters verse 17 stands on it's own
(Genesis 2:4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
I don't think 17 stands on its own, but even if it did, the second half of 2:4 doesn't stand in its own apart from the first half, does it? And the first half of 2:4 makes a reference to the generations of the heavens and the earth, while either referring back to the previous description of 6 days (Gen 1:1-2:3), or ahead to 2:5 and following, which is an unknown number of days, but unlikely to be less than God's sixth and seventh day (in which case "in the day" would still refer to more than a single day).
.
eating took mere minutes and seperated them from God immediately which is the death God warned them about
Separated them from God immediately? How do you get that, since God wasn't walking with them at the time they ate it, but then He came and had a conversation with them after they ate it? Now you've turned "in the day" into "in the instant". Who's doing the eisegesis, here?
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
This certainly doesn't stand in its own, as the narrative started before it and continued after it. Don't we always want to let the bible interpret itself? Don't we need other passages to help with that? Or at least the whole of the passage a verse is in.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Fantastic post, way 2 go! You actually answered my questions. I don't agree with your answer, but it was well worded.

Can you tell me how sin could "revive" in someone?
the Law and we inherited sin
Can something "revive" that has never been alive?
sin is death
"sin revived, and I died."
"For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
So sin must have been alive in him already, and had died in some way, don't you think?
no
If that's true, then how does the commandment coming revive sin? The only way I know of for sin to die in us is for us to die to sin...for us to be crucified with Christ.
how did Paul die ?

how are the dead standing ?

(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, * which is * the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works.

Yes, you did. That's a good way to show one correct use and one incorrect use of "in the day". Nobody uses that second form.
no.
know how I know because I just used it in a sentence you know in the day they dropped the nuke 129,000 people died


We always use "on the day"
no
when talking about a particular day. You even do it when you when you begin the second sentence with "On 6 August..." and while you dropped the period after Hiroshima, you retained the capitalization of "on". We don't use "in the day" to mean the same thing as "on the day".
in or on
no difference
Maybe, but I've shown yours to be wrong, while you've actually shown mine to be possible.
no you didn't and your eisegesis is wrong
eating took very little time not days .
the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
I don't think 17 stands on its own,
verse 17 stands on it's own
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

God said you eat you die in that day that you eat
they ate they died that day

Separated them from God immediately? How do you get that, since God wasn't walking with them at the time they ate it, but then He came and had a conversation with them after they ate it? Now you've turned "in the day" into "in the instant". Who's doing the eisegesis, here?
so now you want to deny they were guilty of sin the moment they ate ?

derf :but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin
 

Derf

Well-known member
the Law and we inherited sin
Edited in:So sin was alive in us thru inheritance from birth, right? And what was the result? That everybody born in Adam's line dies. Then the law came and Paul died. So what about Paul died? Wasn't he already dead in your view? Of already dead, then sin must have died in ordered to be revived...you can't revive something that is already alive.
sin is death
"sin revived, and I died."
Supra.
"For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

no

how did Paul die ?
He recognized his eventual death--that he couldn't keep the law perfectly, or more likely that He realized the law was insufficient to save him. Just like Abimelech became a dead man while he was still alive:
Genesis 20:3 KJV — But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

how are the dead standing ?
Ask Abimelech.
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, * which is * the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works.
Jesus told us there would be a resurrection, and all in their graves would come out, some to eternal life and some to condemnation. These are people that had just before been dead, but now were raised from the dead, just prior to judgment.
no.
know how I know because I just used it in a sentence you know in the day they dropped the nuke 129,000 people died
Which is not normally used that way. Look up "in the day meaning" on the web.
no

in or on
no difference
Incorrect. Here's just one hit from my search:
------------------
Do we use in or on for days?


“In” generally refers to longer periods of time. “On” is used with dates and named days. “By” is used with times and named days of the week, but specifically, telling us an end time.Oct 10, 2017

https://www.mmmenglish.com › pre...

Prepositions of TIME IN / ON / AT / BY Common English Grammar ...

--------------------

no you didn't and your eisegesis is wrong
eating took very little time not days .
the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
I know you have little more to say than what you've already said in this topic, but perhaps you could expand your horizons a bit and investigate a little. Then let me know what you find.
verse 17 stands on it's own
(Genesis 2:17 [MKJV]) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
Wrong. All scripture needs context. For instance, who is the "you" in the verse? Please tell me only from the information in verse 17.
God said you eat you die in that day that you eat
they ate they died that day
See how you had to rephrase from "in the day" to "that day"? That's because we don't use "in the day" like that.
so now you want to deny they were guilty of sin the moment they ate ?

derf :but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin
So? How does that impact our discussion?
 
Last edited:

way 2 go

Well-known member
Edited in:So sin was alive in us thru inheritance from birth, right? And what was the result? That everybody born in Adam's line dies. Then the law came and Paul died. So what about Paul died? Wasn't he already dead in your view? Of already dead, then sin must have died in ordered to be revived...you can't revive something that is already alive.
you're mixed up because you don't believe Adam & Eve died in the day of the eating of the tree
your spiritless man is not compatible with the bible

spiritually alive at birth

(Matthew 18:10) Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones . For I say to you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father in Heaven
(Luke 1:15) For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with * the * Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

He recognized his eventual death-
doesn't say that now does it
"I died "is paste tense

-that he couldn't keep the law perfectly, or more likely that He realized the law was insufficient to save him. Just like Abimelech became a dead man while he was still alive:
Genesis 20:3 KJV — But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
"Abimelech became a dead man" doesn't say that now does it

Jesus told us there would be a resurrection, and all in their graves would come out, some to eternal life and some to condemnation. These are people that had just before been dead, but now were raised from the dead, just prior to judgment.

how are the dead standing before God
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

your contention is death only applies to the physical body and
what would be the point of physically dead bodies standing before God

but they are spiritually dead and that explains dead standing before God

Which is not normally used that way. Look up "in the day meaning" on the web.

Incorrect. Here's just one hit from my search:
------------------
Do we use in or on for days?


“In” generally refers to longer periods of time. “On” is used with dates and named days. “By” is used with times and named days of the week, but specifically, telling us an end time.Oct 10, 2017

--------------------
you've got nothing

eating caused their spiritual death on that day .

So? How does that impact our discussion?
so now you want to deny they were guilty of sin the moment they ate ?

derf :but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin

Paul was physically alive when he wrote this but sin killed Adam & Eve spiritually , immediately

(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .

killed is past tense too
 

Derf

Well-known member
you're mixed up because you don't believe Adam & Eve died in the day of the eating of the tree
You're misrepresenting what I wrote I believe Adam and Eve died "in", but not "on" the day they ate the fruit. And I showed how those two phrases don't have the same meaning, both in our time and in the time when Genesis chapter 2 was written. As it was when Gen 2 was translated into English.
your spiritless man is not compatible with the bible
I never said man was without a spirit. What I am saying is that it isn't necessary to invent some kind of spiritual death to explain Gen 2.
spiritually alive at birth
Unnecessary, since I've shown we don't need the spiritual death concept, when real death works just fine.
(Matthew 18:10) Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones . For I say to you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father in Heaven
(Luke 1:15) For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with * the * Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
Would you like to explain why you quoted those?
doesn't say that now does it
"I died "is paste tense
Right, just like Abimelech was dead, present tense. This he must have died previously (past tense). Since I've shown that the bible sometimes talks about something that hasn't yet happened as if it has already happened in one place (Abimelech), then it might apply in another place (Paul). There is more to back up my assertion, Paul actually describing the very thing that I'm describing:
Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

And he's talking about death and resurrection, which is the exact subject we were talking about.
"Abimelech became a dead man" doesn't say that now does it
No, but it implies it, just like Paul saying "and I died" doesn't say he was dead afterward. "You are a dead man" equals "You died." "And I died" equals "And I became a dead man." If the first can apply to an alive man, meaning "You are about to die," so can the second.
how are the dead standing before God
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

your contention is death only applies to the physical body and
what would be the point of physically dead bodies standing before God
Physically dead bodies can't stsnd, whether there's a point or not. But alive bodies that were previously dead can stand. This is also described elsewhere, as I mentioned before.
John 5:28-29 NKJV — Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Do you think the people that come out of the graves will be able to stand?
but they are spiritually dead and that explains dead standing before God
So they are never actually resurrected before being condemned? Are you calling Jesus a liar?
you've got nothing

eating caused their spiritual death on that day .


so now you want to deny they were guilty of sin the moment they ate ?

derf :but they are guilty as soon as they commit the sin

Paul was physically alive when he wrote this but sin killed Adam & Eve spiritually , immediately

(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .

killed is past tense too
Yep, just as Paul says. "You were dead in pur trespasses and sins" equals "You are as good as dead in your trespasses and sins." Just like Abimelech.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
You're misrepresenting what I wrote I believe Adam and Eve died "in", but not "on" the day they ate the fruit. And I showed how those two phrases don't have the same meaning, both in our time and in the time when Genesis chapter 2 was written. As it was when Gen 2 was translated into English.
on the day your car dies you'll be walking
in the day your car dies you'll be walking
no difference
your still walking the day it happens

I never said man was without a spirit. What I am saying is that it isn't necessary to invent some kind of spiritual death to explain Gen 2.
I didn't invent it , what is is and what is not is not that's truth
Unnecessary, since I've shown we don't need the spiritual death concept, when real death works just fine.
no . only to people who add to the bible like yourself
Would you like to explain why you quoted those?
spiritually alive at birth
Right, just like Abimelech was dead, present tense.
nope , God threatened Abimelech , Paul didn't threaten himself

(Genesis 20:3) But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are about to die, for the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.

No, but it implies it, just like Paul saying "and I died" doesn't say he was dead afterward.
:ROFLMAO:
how could he be alive unless
it's a spiritual death
"You are a dead man" equals "You died." "And I died" equals "And I became a dead man." If the first can apply to an alive man, meaning "You are about to die," so can the second.
no you're adding to the bible which is strange for you since you get hung up over "on or in"

"I died "is paste tense that wasn't Paul threatening himself like God threatened Abimelech

also
(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .

killed is past tense too

killed and died spiritually



Physically dead bodies can't stsnd, whether there's a point or not. But alive bodies that were previously dead can stand. This is also described elsewhere, as I mentioned before.
you like to add to the bible
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

it doesn't say those who were dead , it says "the dead" which you can't explain
but spiritually dead explains it
what is is and what is not is not that's truth
John 5:28-29 NKJV — Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Do you think the people that come out of the graves will be able to stand?
yes they dead will be able to stand
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.


So they are never actually resurrected before being condemned? Are you calling Jesus a liar?
Jesus taught your future is decided at your death

(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
 

Derf

Well-known member
on the day your car dies you'll be walking
in the day your car dies you'll be walking
Both can be true without them meaning the same thing.
no difference
Wrong. Look up the phrases.
your still walking the day it happens


I didn't invent it ,
No, I didn't give you that much credit. But someone did invent it to explain something that they thought needed to be explained.
what is is and what is not is not that's truth
That doesn't mean you are the one speaking truth.
no . only to people who add to the bible like yourself
Or yourself, since "spiritually dead" isn't in the bible.
spiritually alive at birth
Neither of those say anything about being spiritually alive.
nope , God threatened Abimelech , Paul didn't threaten himself
God threatened Paul, just like He threatened Adam and Eve, and Cain, and Abimelech, and everyone under the law. The law carries with it an explicit threat of death for anyone who breaks the law.
:ROFLMAO:
how could he be alive unless
it's a spiritual death
The same way Abimelech was alive even when God, who does not lie, said, "Thou art a dead man."
no you're adding to the bible which is strange for you since you get hung up over "on or in"
Are you saying I have a wrong interpretation of the Abimelech verse? Please explain.
"I died "is paste tense that wasn't Paul threatening himself like God threatened Abimelech
Supra
also
(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .

killed is past tense too

killed and died spiritually
If someone is currently dead, then he died in the past, right? So Abimelech being a dead man means that he died in the past, right? Same as Paul.
you like to add to the bible
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

it doesn't say those who were dead , it says "the dead" which you can't explain
but spiritually dead explains it
John 5:25 KJV — Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Can the dead hear? These are not spiritually dead, but physically dead, as the later verse shows:
John 5:28 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Spiritually dead people aren't in graves. Physically dead people can't hear, unless they are given life first. So it is with those in Rev 20. They were dead, but now they are alive and able to stand and hear.
what is is and what is not is not that's truth
Which is meaningless.
yes they dead will be able to stand
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
I don't have a problem explaining it.
Jesus taught your future is decided at your death
Jesus taught that your future, after death, is decided AFTER the resurrection.
John 5:28-29 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
You have no idea whether the resurrection has already taken place in that story, since it isn't mentioned...unless you are adding to scripture.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Both can be true without them meaning the same thing.
both mean the same thing
walking

on the day your car dies you'll be walking
in the day your car dies you'll be walking
no difference
your still walking the day it happens
That doesn't mean you are the one speaking truth.
just stating what is .
Or yourself, since "spiritually dead" isn't in the bible.
bible or trinity are not in the bible, so ?
but spiritually alive and spiritually dead are taught in the bible just like the trinity

trinity is alluded to in the first verse.
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Neither of those say anything about being spiritually alive.
yes they do, you just can't see it
God doesn't join himself to the spiritually dead

(Luke 1:15) For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

this sounds spiritually dead to you then I guess you're spiritually dead.


your spirit doesn't cry Abba Father ?
(Romans 8:15) For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba, Father!

guess your still dead ?
(Ephesians 2:5) (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved)
God threatened Paul, just like He threatened Adam and Eve, and Cain, and Abimelech,
no , out of those the only one threatened was Abimelech
(Genesis 20:3) But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are about to die, for the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.

and everyone under the law. The law carries with it an explicit threat of death for anyone who breaks the law.
Adam and Eve, and Cain were not under the law

but all 3 were separated from God which is spiritual death

The same way Abimelech was alive even when God, who does not lie, said, "Thou art a dead man."
Abimelech was physically alive and spiritually dead and God threatened him with physical death

(Genesis 20:3) But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are about to die, for the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.

Are you saying I have a wrong interpretation of the Abimelech verse? Please explain.
yes .

If someone is currently dead, then he died in the past, right?
if your able to read this the only kind of dead you could be is spiritually dead not physically dead.

(Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .
(Ephesians 2:5) (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved)
So Abimelech being a dead man means that he died in the past, right? Same as Paul.
God threatened Abimelech with physical death , how come you don't understand that

John 5:25 KJV — Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Can the dead hear? These are not spiritually dead, but physically dead, as the later verse shows:
John 5:28 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Spiritually dead people aren't in graves. Physically dead people can't hear, unless they are given life first. So it is with those in Rev 20. They were dead, but now they are alive and able to stand and hear.
you still have the same problem
they're already resurrected and called "the dead"

(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

it doesn't say those who were dead , it says "the dead" which you can't explain
but spiritually dead explains it
Which is meaningless.
to you truth may be meaningless
what is is and what is not is not that's truth
I don't have a problem explaining it.
then go ahead

yes they dead will be able to stand
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

Jesus taught that your future, after death, is decided AFTER the resurrection.
John 5:28-29 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
your future destination is determined at your physical death no room for repentance after physical death.
punishments and rewards are determined later.

(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Weren't we talking about individuals, whether they were obliged to do something?
You're contending, I thought, that priests should stop celebrating Eucharist. I'm saying I don't buy it.
Agreed, but if we're talking about the same inheritance Paul talks about, it's referring to the resurrection of bodies.
Ephesians 1:14 KJV — Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
But in the meantime, we are anointed with the Spirit. So obviously something's ontologically different right now, not just at the resurrection.
Again, if Paul has anything to say about, it does mean that. And it makes sense if Christ fulfilled the pictures in the law, then such foreshadowing was no longer needed, and it was passing away. If they clung to it in a way that was putting aside the true sacrifice, then it needed to be repented of.
But the Apostles continued to celebrate the temple liturgy after the Ascension. This would make them sinners in so doing. Is this what you're proposing? Or are you suggesting Hebrews was written after the temple was pulverized?
Tell that to a fasting man.
lol. Having some experience with fasting I conclude that while I would characterize fasting as work, it's much easier work than eating and lifting weights is. I look forward to my next fast, because it's so easy. Saves time and effort. Never have to think, "What should I eat."
Right!

No, that's handled in terms of whether such law abidance is helpful for salvation--it's not.
Galatians 3:3 KJV — Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
You're equating the Eucharist with Old Testament law?
Not yet you aren't resurrected, since you haven't died. Resurrection is only applied to a corpse.
Acts 2:29 KJV — Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Acts 2:34 KJV — For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
We're baptized into Christ's Resurrection, not just His death and burial.
Yes...in Christ. Not in us yet--we are ontologically still as we were, sons of Adam. We currently need to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (which IS an actual imperative: be ye transformed...), but we have assurance that it will, because it has happened to Christ, and we are considered to have these things "in Christ".
That's all I meant by all the penitential talk earlier.
1 Corinthians 15:51-52 KJV — Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(future, right?)
Of course. But I think you're implying a false dilemma.
Or, perhaps because the fear of death has passed, since...by faith we believe we will be resurrected. It's a faith that is looking forward to something hoped for, as Hebrews 11:1 tells us.
So what if a non-Christian has no fear of death? Would you expect them to live exactly the same?
 

Derf

Well-known member
You're contending, I thought, that priests should stop celebrating Eucharist. I'm saying I don't buy it.
Priests both administer and celebrate the eucharist, right? And everybody at mass celebrates it? Paul gave a small for-instance of when it's wrong for an individual to celebrate it, and the implication some take from Paul is that the administration should be withheld in certain circumstances. Several congresspersons have been denied the eucharist for such and other reasons over the years. So even the Catholic church seems to agree that it should stop in some fashion, whether you but it or not.
But in the meantime, we are anointed with the Spirit. So obviously something's ontologically different right now, not just at the resurrection.
Why is an anointing of the Spirit an ontological difference? Didn't Saul the king have the anointing of the Spirit, but later lost it, and it was replaced by an evil spirit?
But the Apostles continued to celebrate the temple liturgy after the Ascension. This would make them sinners in so doing. Is this what you're proposing? Or are you suggesting Hebrews was written after the temple was pulverized?
No, but Hebrews comments on the old covenant being replaced, though not in an instant of time.
lol. Having some experience with fasting I conclude that while I would characterize fasting as work, it's much easier work than eating and lifting weights is. I look forward to my next fast, because it's so easy. Saves time and effort. Never have to think, "What should I eat."
Sounds like the military uniform of the day.
You're equating the Eucharist with Old Testament law?
I am?
We're baptized into Christ's Resurrection, not just His death and burial.
Yes, but what does that mean?
That's all I meant by all the penitential talk earlier.
Ok
Of course. But I think you're implying a false dilemma.
The verse is talking about the body, for sure, but isn't the "old man" problem also to be resolved, since it appears to be related to our flesh, which will be changed (future)?
So what if a non-Christian has no fear of death? Would you expect them to live exactly the same?
In some ways, perhaps. Moslems, for instance, think they will be granted access to paradise if they sacrifice their lives for Allah. And they, then, live differently because of that assurance. Why do you ask?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Priests both administer and celebrate the eucharist, right? And everybody at mass celebrates it?
Ministerial priests (e.g. bishops) "celebrate" Mass differently from common priests (all the rest of us). I'm saying Paul is not saying that Church bishops should ever stop celebrating the Eucharist.
Paul gave a small for-instance of when it's wrong for an individual to celebrate it, and the implication some take from Paul is that the administration should be withheld in certain circumstances. Several congresspersons have been denied the eucharist for such and other reasons over the years. So even the Catholic church seems to agree that it should stop in some fashion, whether you but it or not.
It should stop for non-Catholics, Derf. That's what you just proved.
Why is an anointing of the Spirit an ontological difference? Didn't Saul the king have the anointing of the Spirit, but later lost it, and it was replaced by an evil spirit?
Even if it's probationary and reversible, it still must be real. Passing from death to life, transubstantiating from goats to sheep.
No, but Hebrews comments on the old covenant being replaced, though not in an instant of time.
Doesn't it? Doesn't the death of the testator end the Old Covenant in an instant of time? Hadn't it already happened on the cross? And therefore when the Apostles went to the temple to participate in Old Testament liturgy, weren't they sinning, according to Hebrews?

And if instead Christ's death dedicated the New Covenant, amending and fulfilling the Old, even then, still, wasn't what the Apostles were doing still sin, if that's what Hebrews is talking about with repenting of dead works?

In either case, the Old is turned off like a light switch on the cross. Whether it's because it's turned off itself, or because the New was turned on. Same result.

I don't think the Apostles were guilty of not repenting of dead works in participating in OT temple liturgy at the temple while the temple still stood.
Sounds like the military uniform of the day.
Only if you love serving in the military and it's your passion and what completes you and gives your life full meaning. Then that would be an OK analogy.
Context of Galatians 3.
Yes, but what does that mean?
It means an ontological, metaphysical change. A cadaver transubstantiates into a living man.
Ok

The verse is talking about the body, for sure, but isn't the "old man" problem also to be resolved, since it appears to be related to our flesh, which will be changed (future)?
Whatever happens in the future is going to be a one-off, but in the meantime there are predictable and known changes in our accidents, as we are purged of the accidents of a corpse, replacing them with accidents of a living man.
In some ways, perhaps. Moslems, for instance, think they will be granted access to paradise if they sacrifice their lives for Allah. And they, then, live differently because of that assurance. Why do you ask?
I don't think they would get baptized, read the Bible, go to Mass, just because they lack a fear of death. It seems like that's what you were saying. Is that not what you mean?

It seems like your idea of the Christian life is more simply law-abiding and morally upright, but not distinctively Christian, whereas that is not the historical way the Church saw themselves, like ever. They just read the Bible, it says 1st Corinthians 11:26 "till He come," and that's what we do.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Ministerial priests (e.g. bishops) "celebrate" Mass differently from common priests (all the rest of us). I'm saying Paul is not saying that Church bishops should ever stop celebrating the Eucharist.

It should stop for non-Catholics, Derf. That's what you just proved.
Does that not make you a non-catholic?
Even if it's probationary and reversible, it still must be real. Passing from death to life, transubstantiating from goats to sheep.
I'm not saying it's not real, just that the anointing didn't always change the person into something else. I don't see that King Saul became a sheep or that he passed from death to life. In fact, if he had indeed passed from death to life, how could he pass back to death?
Doesn't it? Doesn't the death of the testator end the Old Covenant in an instant of time? Hadn't it already happened on the cross? And therefore when the Apostles went to the temple to participate in Old Testament liturgy, weren't they sinning, according to Hebrews?
Perhaps so. I was thinking of this verse:
Hebrews 8:13 KJV — In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

If it was sin from the moment of Christ's death, and more importantly His resurrection, it wasn't apparent even with Paul, who still participated in temple liturgy, as you call it. I think the attitude of the participant was important--whether they thought it necessary for salvation or not. And perhaps it's similar to thinking the new covenant liturgy is important in the same way--that if your reliance is on a ritual rather than the thing the ritual symbolizes, you are sinning according to Hebrews:
Hebrews 4:1 KJV — Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

And if instead Christ's death dedicated the New Covenant, amending and fulfilling the Old, even then, still, wasn't what the Apostles were doing still sin, if that's what Hebrews is talking about with repenting of dead works?
Supra, but let's acknowledge what works might be dead--any that we rely on to save us.
In either case, the Old is turned off like a light switch on the cross. Whether it's because it's turned off itself, or because the New was turned on. Same result.

I don't think the Apostles were guilty of not repenting of dead works in participating in OT temple liturgy at the temple while the temple still stood.
I don't think so, either, for the reason stated above. And ONLY for the reason stated above.
Only if you love serving in the military and it's your passion and what completes you and gives your life full meaning. Then that would be an OK analogy.

Context of Galatians 3.
If it's used in the same way...trading the old liturgy for a new one...then I guess I am.
It means an ontological, metaphysical change. A cadaver transubstantiates into a living man.

Whatever happens in the future is going to be a one-off, but in the meantime there are predictable and known changes in our accidents, as we are purged of the accidents of a corpse, replacing them with accidents of a living man.
I'm not getting the "accidents" terminology. Nor the gist of your "one-off" comment. Do you mean that the resurrection is of less importance than the already-effected ontological change?

If so, that's why I'm trying to tie them together. That already-effected ontological change is BECAUSE of the promise of the future resurrection, not that the resurrection is merely a byproduct of the change we (hope we) see here and now.
I don't think they would get baptized, read the Bible, go to Mass, just because they lack a fear of death. It seems like that's what you were saying. Is that not what you mean?
But we might not sin because we lack a fear of death. Getting baptized is an early step in beginning to recognize that we don't need to fear death. Reading the bible helps us to understand that death need not be feared. Going to mass? I'm not sure what part that plays, as I'm not sure where the similaritie lie with respect to fellowshipping with the saints and devoting ourselves to the teaching of our pastoral leaders, which also are intended to remind us of what has already occurred (Christ's resurrection) so we can apply that to our own future, assured resurrection.
It seems like your idea of the Christian life is more simply law-abiding and morally upright, but not distinctively Christian, whereas that is not the historical way the Church saw themselves, like ever. They just read the Bible, it says 1st Corinthians 11:26 "till He come," and that's what we do.
And it became formulaic, which makes it ineffective. The formula is always ineffective, because it is dead works. The belief is what's important. That's why we non-Catholics focus on both the baptism and communion as rites of symbology or remembrance of our salvation, not rites of salvation themselves.
 

Derf

Well-known member
your problem is explaining how there are still dead and standing
(Revelation of John 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
Jesus explained that for me.
John 5:28-29 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The dead (in their graves) "hear" Jesus' voice and come out of their graves, stand before God, and face judgment. Obviously the dead are resurrected, and thus can hear and stand.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Jesus explained that for me.
John 5:28-29 KJV — Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The dead (in their graves) "hear" Jesus' voice and come out of their graves, stand before God, and face judgment. Obviously the dead are resurrected, and thus can hear and stand.
yes and the dead are still said to be dead after being resurrected

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

just like before they died

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.


the dead are dead before they physically die and dead after they are resurrected
 

Derf

Well-known member
yes and the dead are still said to be dead after being resurrected

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

just like before they died

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.


the dead are dead before they physically die and dead after they are resurrected
Just like God said Abimelech was dead before he physically died...but it wasn't "spiritual death". Sometimes God talks about something that hasn't happened yet as if it has already happened.

Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.



That concept is in the bible in numerous places, And in the place above it's immediately contiguous with God giving life to dead people! So why would you not be willing to allow use of that concept in places where scripture talks about dead people?

I could be wrong on this issue, I admit. But I'll never find out if I'm wrong unless I'm willing to look at and attempt to understand the scriptures used to bolster the other position. I'd ask you to afford me the same courtesy instead of just repeating your same talking points, which I've answered in a way that makes sense of your cited scriptures in favor with my position.

Can you do that?
 
Top