What is death? What is resurrection? And why do we care?

[God's Truth]

It's a shame, because this thread has some merit if we didn't have to wade through GT's trolling. :sigh:

This thread topic is about something Derf found interesting about what I said.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm starting this thread to keep from clogging up another one (What is the Gospel? started by [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION]) with rabbit trails.

These are two responses I had to a post or two in the other thread, and I wanted to answer them without hijacking Sonnet's.

---

For now, I'm just starting the thread as a placeholder, without my own comments. I'll be back...

This thread topic is about something Derf found interesting about what I said.

:think:

 

[glorydaz]

Why don't you say something interesting about the topic so we can talk about it?

Why not respond to my last post I made to you after I took the time to reply to yours?

I'll do that. Sorry for the delay. I haven't yet quit my day job to hang out on TOL all the time.

I have a day job too. So how does not quitting your day job give you a pass to be rude?

This thread topic is about something Derf found interesting about what I said.

One would think you'd have a bit more respect for someone who took the time to tolerate you bad attitude. :chew:

 

[God's Truth]

One would think you'd have a bit more respect for someone who took the time to tolerate you bad attitude. :chew:

Derf, do you want to say something about glorydazed constantly fighting?

 

[God's Truth]

:think:

Derf, where are you now?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Guilt and the law go hand in hand. That's why believers have been delivered from the law.

Yep. Thank you Jesus.

 

[Derf]

Derf, do you want to say something about glorydazed constantly fighting?

Derf, where are you now?

If you remember, I let your tiff with Watchman proceed for quite awhile before stepping in. My preference, which I always tried to use with my children, was to watch them a bit to see how they did at reconciliation without my aid before I started interfering directly.

Are you asking for that interference before you've tried to work things out with GD?

So far you've started a fight with Watchman, you've rejected GD's admonition, and you neg-repped me twice, all while claiming it was your idea that led to the thread. Seems like you are a little uptight for someone who never sins.

Shall we talk about how this affects death and resurrection, to get the thread back on topic? Or should we drop the hysterics and have a decent discussion?

 

[God's Truth]

If you remember, I let your tiff with Watchman proceed for quite awhile before stepping in. My preference, which I always tried to use with my children, was to watch them a bit to see how they did at reconciliation without my aid before I started interfering directly.

Are you asking for that interference before you've tried to work things out with GD?

So far you've started a fight with Watchman, you've rejected GD's admonition, and you neg-repped me twice, all while claiming it was your idea that led to the thread. Seems like you are a little uptight for someone who never sins.

Shall we talk about how this affects death and resurrection, to get the thread back on topic? Or should we drop the hysterics and have a decent discussion?

You are the one who is rebuked, but you can pretend that you are not. You don't obey God who says don't play favoritism. You are a false and unjust person. You know you can't prove your false beliefs against the truth that I speak, so you are lumped with the others like yourself who resort to bullying and insults.

 

[Derf]

You are the one who is rebuked, but you can pretend that you are not. You don't obey God who says don't play favoritism. You are a false and unjust person. You know you can't prove your false beliefs against the truth that I speak, so you are lumped with the others like yourself who resort to bullying and insults.

Do my words hit home that hard? Maybe it's because they are true. Maybe your conscience is so seared to correction, but your mind still hears it and is offended. I don't know, GT. But you are ever willing to hand out rebukes but I've never seen you take one.

How about you make this one the first?

Can we get back to the topic? I thought when I started this, that you would have some interesting input. You started out with some. I encourage you to leave off the bickering and get back to the discussion, if it really was you who wrote this:

I have been longing to study that more with someone such as yourself, someone who considers all scripture.
...

Let's keep discussing this.

 

[Derf]

I'm going to try this again.

Parables from God are not lies.

Where do you ever get that if it is a parable it is not a resemblance of truth but rather some kind of fairy tale?

I don't think you quite caught my gist. I'm not saying parables are fairy tales. They do resemble truth, but they aren't necessarily real events that have happened as stated. For instance,

The trees went forth [on a time] to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? [Jdg 9:8-9 KJV]...​

This is a parable ABOUT a real event (the men of Shechem making Abimelech king over them), but in the real event, trees did not talk.

I don't believe the rich man/Lazarus story is ALL parable--but it might be partial parable. Assuming it is a real event, what is the time frame? Did Jesus tell a story of something in the past, or something in the future? If it is partial parable, is it accurately portraying the state of men after death? Probably, to some degree. Is it portraying the state of death before or after the resurrection and judgment? I don't know. If before the judgment, why is the rich man in torment already? I'm leaning toward it being about a future state in my thinking right now--referring to the lake of fire judgment. But I admit I don't know.

My previously held belief was that the story represented what happened to people that died before Christ died--that the unjust were tormented until the time of judgment, and the righteous were already in bliss of some sort. After Christ died, the "Abraham's bosom" part was transported to heaven. All of these effects, whether bliss or torment, were executed on the bodiless spirits of dead people. I'm not so sure at this point. Again, if it is BEFORE judgment, how is it that the rich man has already been judged? If it's before the judgment, what mechanism allows for the rich man to feel pain without a body. Do spirits feel pain? (They probably do--Matt 8:29--but that, then, helps us to understand the nature of demons and angels, I suppose).

If it is a true story, was it referring to the other Lazarus (brother of Mary and Martha)? If so, who was the rich man? If not, why did Jesus give Lazarus' name? I think it IS about that Lazarus, but not necessarily events as they actually happened, since the real Lazarus was sent back from the dead, while Abraham seems to think there's no need.

What in the world is a slip up sin?

Something you've not experienced, no doubt, but I'm referring to sins committed by believers that they reject in their minds, but in their flesh still commit. Not a continued thing, but one that is repented of after commission.

What you say is not from God. Give the scripture that says we are still to live by the flesh and sin. You twist it up as if you are so wise. We are to obey and that IS WHAT TRANSFORMS US.
Jesus says to eat of him. You can't eat of him if you are not obeying him. You have to eat/obey him to get saved and to stay saved.
Stop making up things and just believe what is written.

Obviously there are no scriptures where God says to live by the flesh and sin. Nor did I say that is what God says to do. Let's all stop making stuff up, ok? I do question whether our efforts by themselves transform us. Do you think we have the power to transform ourselves? Do you not think the power of Christ's sacrifice is part of the transformation? If not, what power was in Christ's sacrifice? This is important, but not necessarily on topic. Do you want to relate it to the topic?

See what you do, you don't understand it so you put it down and claim it some kind of fairy tale of pagans.

I don't believe I mentioned pagans at all; nor fairy tales. Do you see some commonality between what i wrote and that ascribed to pagans? Can you show me what is ascribed to pagans and where?

Jesus says there are.

Can you quote them for me? My knowledge is limited.

As for your insults to me about not being allowed to defend myself when I am confronted publicly---I don't care to be judged by such a person as yourself. You are not fit to judge, seeing as how you are unjust.

Thus you think I'm not a saint--1 Cor 6:1-3? I guess there won't be many there to judge with you.

What's interesting is that most people don't get to choose whom they are judged by.

 

[God's Truth]

I'm going to try this again.
I don't think you quite caught my gist. I'm not saying parables are fairy tales. They do resemble truth, but they aren't necessarily real events that have happened as stated. For instance,

The trees went forth [on a time] to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? [Jdg 9:8-9 KJV]...​

This is a parable ABOUT a real event (the men of Shechem making Abimelech king over them), but in the real event, trees did not talk.

I don't believe the rich man/Lazarus story is ALL parable--but it might be partial parable. Assuming it is a real event, what is the time frame? Did Jesus tell a story of something in the past, or something in the future? If it is partial parable, is it accurately portraying the state of men after death? Probably, to some degree. Is it portraying the state of death before or after the resurrection and judgment? I don't know. If before the judgment, why is the rich man in torment already? I'm leaning toward it being about a future state in my thinking right now--referring to the lake of fire judgment. But I admit I don't know.

My previously held belief was that the story represented what happened to people that died before Christ died--that the unjust were tormented until the time of judgment, and the righteous were already in bliss of some sort. After Christ died, the "Abraham's bosom" part was transported to heaven. All of these effects, whether bliss or torment, were executed on the bodiless spirits of dead people. I'm not so sure at this point. Again, if it is BEFORE judgment, how is it that the rich man has already been judged? If it's before the judgment, what mechanism allows for the rich man to feel pain without a body. Do spirits feel pain? (They probably do--Matt 8:29--but that, then, helps us to understand the nature of demons and angels, I suppose).

If it is a true story, was it referring to the other Lazarus (brother of Mary and Martha)? If so, who was the rich man? If not, why did Jesus give Lazarus' name? I think it IS about that Lazarus, but not necessarily events as they actually happened, since the real Lazarus was sent back from the dead, while Abraham seems to think there's no need.

Something you've not experienced, no doubt, but I'm referring to sins committed by believers that they reject in their minds, but in their flesh still commit. Not a continued thing, but one that is repented of after commission.

Obviously there are no scriptures where God says to live by the flesh and sin. Nor did I say that is what God says to do. Let's all stop making stuff up, ok? I do question whether our efforts by themselves transform us. Do you think we have the power to transform ourselves? Do you not think the power of Christ's sacrifice is part of the transformation? If not, what power was in Christ's sacrifice? This is important, but not necessarily on topic. Do you want to relate it to the topic?

I don't believe I mentioned pagans at all; nor fairy tales. Do you see some commonality between what i wrote and that ascribed to pagans? Can you show me what is ascribed to pagans and where?


Can you quote them for me? My knowledge is limited.

Thus you think I'm not a saint--1 Cor 6:1-3? I guess there won't be many there to judge with you.

What's interesting is that most people don't get to choose whom they are judged by.

I didn't read what you wrote, but I do hope it was nice. Thank you if it was. I just do not agree with a spirit such as yours.

You don't even know about the life of the spirit after the death of the body. You have a contentious spirit and I hope you find the Lord.

 

[God's Truth]

Do my words hit home that hard? Maybe it's because they are true. Maybe your conscience is so seared to correction, but your mind still hears it and is offended. I don't know, GT. But you are ever willing to hand out rebukes but I've never seen you take one.

How about you make this one the first?

Can we get back to the topic? I thought when I started this, that you would have some interesting input. You started out with some. I encourage you to leave off the bickering and get back to the discussion, if it really was you who wrote this:

I can't force myself to read anything you post to me. I hope it was nice. God bless.

 

[Derf]

There are 2 deaths and 2 Resurrections.

1st death is when we die in this life and go to Heaven or Hell.

2nd death is at the end of the Millennial reign after the great white throne judgement when non-Christians etc are sent to the lake of fire.

1st Resurrection is for the 144,000 to reign with Christ during the Millennial reign.

2nd Resurrection is for the Great Multitude at the end of the Millennial reign who will live on the new Earth and in Heaven.

Hi Watchman,
I'd like to go back to this post of yours, if you don't mind. And I'm not just trying to argue, but want to see if we are able to discern between "what we've always been taught" (at least in my case) and what the scripture says.

We may need to define "heaven" and "hell", too, since both terms are used for multiple things.

I'll start with "heaven". Genesis tells us

[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[Gen 1:2 KJV] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[Gen 1:6 KJV] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[Gen 1:8 KJV] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The first statement uses "heaven" in a singular form in the KJV. Other translations use the plural, and the Hebrew seems to be the same (plural) in both verses. The second statement confirms that the earth was "without form and void", but it suggests that the earth already existed at this point, so the assumption would be that "heaven" also existed at this point. The third statement tells us that God made a firmament (that didn't exist before), and called it "Heaven" in the fourth statement.

Other verses explain that the stars, the sun, and the moon are in "the firmament of heaven" (Gen 1:14-18); that birds fly in the "open firmament of heaven" (Gen 1:20); and that "the heavens" (note the plural) were completed (Gen 2:1).

Can we use these verses to discern "three" heavens, enough to make sense of Paul's "3rd heaven" statement in 2 Cor 12:2? If so, then I would propose the "first heaven" is the "open firmament of heaven" (where birds fly), that the second is the "firmament of heaven" is where sun, moon, and stars reside, and the "third heaven" is beyond the second, but is a creation of God (like a man building a house, perhaps?).

I think your proposition is that when a human dies, he goes to either heaven or hell, so this heaven would likely be the one Paul talks about as the third heaven. Right?

I'll address hell in the next post. While "heaven" is used in our vernacular to refer to places of both the living and the dead, "hell" is only used in reference to the dead. Whether the nomenclature is correct or not according to scripture is something we should investigate.

Derf

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Hi Watchman,
I'd like to go back to this post of yours, if you don't mind. And I'm not just trying to argue, but want to see if we are able to discern between "what we've always been taught" (at least in my case) and what the scripture says.

We may need to define "heaven" and "hell", too, since both terms are used for multiple things.

I'll start with "heaven". Genesis tells us

The first statement uses "heaven" in a singular form in the KJV. Other translations use the plural, and the Hebrew seems to be the same (plural) in both verses. The second statement confirms that the earth was "without form and void", but it suggests that the earth already existed at this point, so the assumption would be that "heaven" also existed at this point. The third statement tells us that God made a firmament (that didn't exist before), and called it "Heaven" in the fourth statement.

Other verses explain that the stars, the sun, and the moon are in "the firmament of heaven" (Gen 1:14-18); that birds fly in the "open firmament of heaven" (Gen 1:20); and that "the heavens" (note the plural) were completed (Gen 2:1).

Can we use these verses to discern "three" heavens, enough to make sense of Paul's "3rd heaven" statement in 2 Cor 12:2? If so, then I would propose the "first heaven" is the "open firmament of heaven" (where birds fly), that the second is the "firmament of heaven" is where sun, moon, and stars reside, and the "third heaven" is beyond the second, but is a creation of God (like a man building a house, perhaps?).

I think your proposition is that when a human dies, he goes to either heaven or hell, so this heaven would likely be the one Paul talks about as the third heaven. Right?

I'll address hell in the next post. While "heaven" is used in our vernacular to refer to places of both the living and the dead, "hell" is only used in reference to the dead. Whether the nomenclature is correct or not according to scripture is something we should investigate.

Derf

I agree with everything you said. I would stick to the Strong's/Interlinear Bibles rather than any other translations when trying to understand particular words etc, (and even the source manuscripts in certain cases). But just to clarify; when you said; 'While "heaven" is used in our vernacular to refer to places of both the living and the dead' - Did you mean when Christian's die and go to Heaven? As the spiritually dead can't enter Heaven.

 

[Derf]

What about "hell"? From my understanding, the word "hell" is used for three different locations as well.

Spoiler

Here's a short list of verses translated as "hell" in the KJV OT:
Deu 32:22
2Sa 22:6
Job 11:8
Job 26:6
Psa 9:17
Psa 16:10

Deut 32:22 refers to "the lowest hell", suggesting a similar structure as "heaven"

The OT seems to use "Sheol" exclusively, and the KJV translates it as "grave", "pit", or "hell"

The NT uses 3 terms that are translated "hell": "Hades", "Tartarus", and "Gehenna". The first two are Greek terms, and the last means "Valley of Hinnom", which was Jerusalem's city dump where refuse was burned in Jesus' time.

"Tartarus" is only used in 2 Pet 2:4, talking of the angels that sinned being kept there for judgment. The demon group "Legion" also refers to an "abyss" that is probably the same place: [Luk 8:31] And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. It is associated with torment, possibly, by the account in Mark (Mark 5:7). Rev 20:1-2 also mentions a pit/abyss, where Satan is chained for 1000 years. Rom 10:7 applies it to where Christ was while dead, which is the only instance of application to humans (I think).

"Hades" is usually translated as "hell", but once as "grave" (1 Cor 15:55), where it is obviously a metaphor for death or hell.

There's another word, "thanatos" that is translated consistently as "death". It is paired with "Hades" in both Rev 20:13 and Rev 1:18, where they appear to be containers of the dead, as well as Rev 6:8 and 20:14, where both are personified.

I have intentionally left out the story of the rich man and Lazarus. I'm not against using it in the discussion, but due to some people's assertion that it isn't a description of reality, but only a parable, I omitted it for now, wondering if we can come to the same conclusions without it.

Thanks,
Derf

 

[Derf]

I agree with everything you said. I would stick to the Strong's/Interlinear Bibles rather than any other translations when trying to understand particular words etc, (and even the source manuscripts in certain cases). But just to clarify; when you said; 'While "heaven" is used in our vernacular to refer to places of both the living and the dead' - Did you mean when Christian's die and go to Heaven? As the spiritually dead can't enter Heaven.

I referred to the "vernacular", because it is a coming thing to say that when someone dies they go to heaven. Since most people think of this time period we're in as prior to the resurrection, these people in heaven must be "dead". The best explanation I've heard is that their spirits or souls are in heaven, but their bodies are not yet resurrected.

If their bodies are not yet resurrected, are they alive or dead???

Regarding translations, I like to use multiple translations to see if there's a pervasive bent, but it definitely helps to refer to the interlinears and Strong's or other similar resources. I haven't detected a lot of disagreement.

Since Strong's and other Greek-English lexicons I've seen are mostly taken based on biblical usages, I'm curious about external sources--if there are good sources of Greek language from the NT period that explain these words differently, or are they consistent as well.

One more thing: what does "spiritually dead" mean? I usually associate that term with what happened to Adam and continued to be the case for every descendant of Adam, except Jesus Christ, until after Christ's resurrection. It seems to be a convenient term to use that doesn't really fit with most scripture. I've gone through some of these thoughts in other posts. I'm not sure if I can define it very well, so I've stopped using it, for now at least.

If you have a definition to offer, please do, and some scripture to back it up, too.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I referred to the "vernacular", because it is a coming thing to say that when someone dies they go to heaven. Since most people think of this time period we're in as prior to the resurrection, these people in heaven must be "dead". The best explanation I've heard is that their spirits or souls are in heaven, but their bodies are not yet resurrected.

If their bodies are not yet resurrected, are they alive or dead???

Regarding translations, I like to use multiple translations to see if there's a pervasive bent, but it definitely helps to refer to the interlinears and Strong's or other similar resources. I haven't detected a lot of disagreement.

Since Strong's and other Greek-English lexicons I've seen are mostly taken based on biblical usages, I'm curious about external sources--if there are good sources of Greek language from the NT period that explain these words differently, or are they consistent as well.

One more thing: what does "spiritually dead" mean? I usually associate that term with what happened to Adam and continued to be the case for every descendant of Adam, except Jesus Christ, until after Christ's resurrection. It seems to be a convenient term to use that doesn't really fit with most scripture. I've gone through some of these thoughts in other posts. I'm not sure if I can define it very well, so I've stopped using it, for now at least.

If you have a definition to offer, please do, and some scripture to back it up, too.

Again I agree with everything you have said. To clarify, If someone goes to Heaven when their body dies then they are spiritually alive, those who go to Hell are spiritually dead. We are dead in our sins unless we are made alive in Christ when we come to faith. This verse is useful:

Mark 12
24Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’d ? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

As Jesus says; "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This therefore is stating that only those who are spiritually alive will go to Heaven and will ultimately be allowed to live on the New Earth and in the New Heaven.

 

[Derf]

Again I agree with everything you have said. To clarify, If someone goes to Heaven when their body dies then they are spiritually alive, those who go to Hell are spiritually dead. We are dead in our sins unless we are made alive in Christ when we come to faith. This verse is useful:

Mark 12
24Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’d ? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

As Jesus says; "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This therefore is stating that only those who are spiritually alive will go to Heaven and will ultimately be allowed to live on the New Earth and in the New Heaven.

Those citations don't address the term "spiritually". Can you see why I'm having some difficulty with it?

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What is death?

Derf, what kind of "death" do you think that Paul is referring to here in "bold"?:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Ro.5:12).​

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

Derf, what kind of "death" do you think that Paul is referring to here in "bold"?:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Ro.5:12).​

Thanks!

Hi Jerry. Nice to hear from you. I would suppose, without clarifying statements, that Paul is referring to physical death. I'm having trouble finding other types in scripture.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app