Soul Sleeping? What does scripture say happens to us when we die.

[UnitedWithChrist]

Look, I have never claimed to not be influenced by other teachings. I have just said I don't discard them simply because of their source. Yes, I have read most of what Armstrong wrote and agree with a lot and disagree with as about as much. The same goes for the SDA and the COG 7th-Day. I mainly fellowship with the last group mentioned.

Some hard held things I strongly fight over I feel directly taught by the HS. In my bio, I emphasized how the HS dealt with me on self defense. I doubt anyone will get anywhere arguing with me on that because of how strongly the HS presented it. Other things are not so strongly held.

The bottom line for me is I don't want to believe my errors plus someone else's errors just because I blindly followed them. It is time to inspect our traditional teachings and come to a God ordered truth. I take a hard stand on the Reformers because I see all the errors they bought into. Just look at the naming of their churches, and the veneration of certain saints. That rubs so wrong with everything I read in the Bible. If you don't see it, I feel for you. View attachment 213001

You don't even know what you are talking about. Reformed people DON'T venerate saints. If you can find anything in the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession teaching veneration of saints, you show me the reference to it. Those confessions are the core confessions of most Reformed churches.

I have never heard a Reformed person indicate that there is a separate category of believers called "saints". All real believers are saints.

LOL

You must have Reformed people confused with Roman Catholics or something.

I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be a knowledgeable Christian can accuse Reformed people of venerating saints. In fact, they were likely the ones who broke away from it.

Do yourself a favor and read some church history. You're not going to learn accurate history about the Reformation or Reformed theology from Internet sources.

I would also seriously advise you to reject Armstrong's teaching that you will become God at the resurrection. This is a blasphemous, Satanic lie. There are two reasons that I don't believe Armstrongites are Christian. One involves their teaching that they will become God, and all the distortions that involves. the other is their teaching that they are the true church.

COG7 actually withdrew Armstrong's ministerial credentials. He was too crazy even for them. I understand that they reject the Trinity. Apparently his British Israelism and insistence that believers need to keep annual festivals is why he was thrown out..mostly due to the contention part.

Thanks for admitting that you have studied other people, and derived some of your views from them. I don't think there's hardly anyone who doesn't consider others in the formation of their biblical positions. Young guys will deny it in self righteous vanity, though.

 

[Deade]

You don't even know what you are talking about. Reformed people DON'T venerate saints. If you can find anything in the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession teaching veneration of saints, you show me the reference to it. Those confessions are the core confessions of most Reformed churches.

I have never heard a Reformed person indicate that there is a separate category of believers called "saints". All real believers are saints.

LOL

You must have Reformed people confused with Roman Catholics or something.

I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be a knowledgeable Christian can accuse Reformed people of venerating saints. In fact, they were likely the ones who broke away from it.

Do yourself a favor and read some church history. You're not going to learn accurate history about the Reformation or Reformed theology from Internet sources.

I would also seriously advise you to reject Armstrong's teaching that you will become God at the resurrection. This is a blasphemous, Satanic lie. There are two reasons that I don't believe Armstrongites are Christian. One involves their teaching that they will become God, and all the distortions that involves. the other is their teaching that they are the true church.

COG7 actually withdrew Armstrong's ministerial credentials. He was too crazy even for them. I understand that they reject the Trinity. Apparently his British Israelism and insistence that believers need to keep annual festivals is why he was thrown out..mostly due to the contention part.

Thanks for admitting that you have studied other people, and derived some of your views from them. I don't think there's hardly anyone who doesn't consider others in the formation of their biblical positions. Young guys will deny it in self righteous vanity, though.

I just look at all the church names and that looks like veneration to me. And I'll have you to know I have read all of the "Confessions" and still see the Roman Catholic influence therein. I participate on another forum that is all Reformed and I know somewhat about it.

 

[massorite]

Soul do not go to sleep six feet under the soil. So that is simply another absurd doctrine based up misinterpreting the Bible.

What is soul sleep?
by Matt Slick
Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh-day Adventists hold to this doctrine as do most conditionalists (those who say that the wicked are judged and don't exist anymore). But the Jehovah's Witnesses teach annihilation. This means that after death a person ceases to exist. At the future resurrection, they maintain that the soul is made again. Basically, it is a re-creation of the individual. The Seventh-day Adventists teach at the soul is simply inert and resides in the memory of God.

The primary verses used to support soul sleep are found in Ecclesiastes:

• Eccl. 9:5, For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten."
• Eccl. 12:7, "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it."

Ecclesiastes must be understood in the context of its own commentary, which says at the opening of the book, "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.” 3 What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun?" (Eccl. 1:1-3). The writer is telling us how things are from the human perspective, from "under the sun." He is not telling us doctrinal statements about whether or not the soul continues after death. Besides, it's a mistake to use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament. It is the New Testament that sheds light on the Old Testament.
In the New Testament we see Paul say in 2 Cor. 5:8, "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." Paul is clearly telling us that when he dies, he will go and be with the Lord. Furthermore, at the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:1-8) we see Moses and Elijah who were alive. There was no soul sleep with them.
Luke 23:42–43 is the account of where Jesus was being crucified. Jesus speaks to the criminal on his right and says "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus was saying that he and the criminal would be together in paradise. Some Respond to this and say that Jesus was emphasizing that he was speaking right then and there, "today." But, that position can only be held by those who presuppose a form of soul sleep. Of course, it was obvious that Jesus was speaking to him. But Jesus is saying to the criminal that he will be with Jesus in paradise today.
In addition when we look at the account of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, we clearly see Jesus using the imagery of consciousness after death. If soul sleep is true, what was Jesus doing relating the account of two individuals who were both conscious after their death?
In Revelation 6:10 we see the account of people being conscious after death and asking God, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” This is before the resurrection. Here gain we have another account of consciousness after physical death.
Therefore, the doctrine of soul sleep is incorrect. The soul continues on after death in a conscious state. The wicked face the judgment of God, and the Christians will dwell in His presence.

Soul do not go to sleep six feet under the soil. So that is simply another absurd doctrine based up misinterpreting the Bible.
You are correct. I never once said that the body goes to sleep six feet under the soil. I have always maintained and preached that the Soul is what goes to sleep and the soul doesn't go to sleep while still in the grave. The souls of the righteous under the shed blood of Christ go to the Bosom of Abraham and the wicked always go to a place of torment but the body stays in the grave and rots. Both places are located in Hades. One is called Gehenna and the other is called the Bosom of Abraham. The soul is not ever six feet the soil. Only the body is six feet under the soil. The soul always goes to Hades which is a combo of Geheena and the Bosom of Abraham. Scripture never tells us how deep the Bosom of Abraham is except that it is in the lower parts of the earth.
Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended FIRST into the lower PARTS OF THE EARTH?
So do you know how far under ground the Lower parts of the earth are??? OR are you calling Paul a liar or misguided when he stated that Christ first descended into the lower parts of the earth and BEFORE CHRIST ASCENDED???
Are you calling the Word of God a liar when it tells us that there is such a realm as a place of torment where the rich man was suffering horrible torment???
Are calling Christ a liar when He told us that Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham????
If Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham and the rich man was in a place of torment, what was in their graves six feet under???
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; This verse is telling us the BY THE QUICKENED SPIRIT Christ was able to go and preach to the spirits in prison. Which tells us that it wasn't His body that first descended it was His spirit!!!
His body was still in the tomb they put it in after He died.
Do you know anything about the "SPIRITS IN PRISON??? Do you know where the prison is located??? Is it six feet under or someplace else???
Maybe you should spend a little time researching the word Hell. You will find that the word Hell is actually translated from the Greek words Hades and Gehenna and the Prison is located is another realm in the lower parts of the earth called Tartarus. All 3 word sof which King James changed to the word HEll. But a little research would reveal the true meanins of each word translated to the word Hell.

 

[massorite]

By the way, making claims regarding the number of years someone has researched something, and their alleged independent verification, means nothing to me.

I've been a Christian for 35 years. I believed wrong teachings on this topic for the vast majority of those years. I am humble enough to acknowledge that.

Man, in his pridefulness and vanity, tends to think that he is the independent, impartial arbiter of truth. Once he has made his decision on some point of doctrine, he tends to hold onto that, and refuses to accept that he may be wrong.

This is because men are prideful. And, this doesn't seem to be limited to age. Younger men are very prideful, and so are older men.

I hope that God is able to correct my bad doctrine throughout all my life, and I am not blind to the fact that I could be wrong on some aspects.

And, this particular topic is one where I was wrong for many years.

But, telling me how many years you studied something isn't helpful. It is a claim to expert opinion that I do not acknowledge. I held the "soul sleep" view for 2/3 of my Christian life...I no longer hold it.

By denying it, I prove that I am able do divest myself of false beliefs despite the number of years I held the belief.

It is always fashionable in some circles to claim that you are the impartial arbiter of truth. Cult leaders make a habit of doing this. I actually consider church history in regards to a particular doctrine, and am hesitant to claim that I am in a position to pridefully correct church history.

This is not to say that church history is always correct, because I don't believe that. For instance, Roman Catholicism was wrong on justification by faith alone. However, I would always factor in my pridefulness before I challenged a doctrine that is well-established like the conscious disembodied state between death and the resurrection.

By the way, making claims regarding the number of years someone has researched something, and their alleged independent verification, means nothing to me.
LOL I was not trying to impress. I was stating a fact, but Good that makes us even. I think your claims are corrupted with false biblical interpretations. To bad though, you were once correct but have been draged into denying the reality of scripture. Please don't get me wrong because I am willing to change my doctrinal beliefs but you would need to prove that all of the research I have done on all of the scriptures I have quoted to prove the doctrinal belief of soul sleep as being biblically sound, as being wrong or come up with one single scripture that contradicts and proves me wrong. So far every one who has argued against soul sleep including you have failed to do so.
Eccl. 12:7, "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." I do not use this scripture to support soul sleep and most people misinterpret this verse completely. The word "Spirit" in this verse in the Hebrew means breath and has nothing to do with the soul. When we are born God breaths the spirit of the breath of life into our lungs and we take in our first breath of life. When we die the very last thing we do physically is to breath out our very last breath and that is when the spirit of the breath of life goes back to God where it came from.
Come up with a scripture and I will dissect it and we will see. Even in this post you have failed to quote a scripture that proves soul sleep is a false or correct doctrine.
I don't use the other verse you quoted from Ecc. either to prove soul sleep.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

By the way, making claims regarding the number of years someone has researched something, and their alleged independent verification, means nothing to me.
LOL I was not trying to impress. I was stating a fact, but Good that makes us even. I think your claims are corrupted with false biblical interpretations. To bad though, you were once correct but have been draged into denying the reality of scripture. Please don't get me wrong because I am willing to change my doctrinal beliefs but you would need to prove that all of the research I have done on all of the scriptures I have quoted to prove the doctrinal belief of soul sleep as being biblically sound, as being wrong or come up with one single scripture that contradicts and proves me wrong. So far every one who has argued against soul sleep including you have failed to do so.
Eccl. 12:7, "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." I do not use this scripture to support soul sleep and most people misinterpret this verse completely. The word "Spirit" in this verse in the Hebrew means breath and has nothing to do with the soul. When we are born God breaths the spirit of the breath of life into our lungs and we take in our first breath of life. When we die the very last thing we do physically is to breath out our very last breath and that is when the spirit of the breath of life goes back to God where it came from.
Come up with a scripture and I will dissect it and we will see. Even in this post you have failed to quote a scripture that proves soul sleep is a false or correct doctrine.
I don't use the other verse you quoted from Ecc. either to prove soul sleep.

Your prior research means nothing to me. My guess is you started with studying teachings from either the Seventh Day Adventists or Armstrongites. It would be interesting to know where you got your ideas from.

Ecclesiastes is that the Preacher, who is probably Solomon, is talking about life from a carnal perspective, without the eternal perspective. Using proof-texting from this book to prove your theories is not wise.

Regarding the Hebrew word for spirit (Ruach), you know, you really have to be shallow to claim that your exegesis is correct in this regard. For instance, the Holy Spirit is called Ruach Ha'Kodesh. Ruach CAN indicate breath or wind, but no one would claim that the Holy Spirit is merely God's breath. Even the Seventh Day Adventists don't believe that.

So, to claim there is no spirit related to man's nature which goes back to God is incorrect. Additionally, Ecclesiastes 3:21 indicates that there is a qualitative difference between man and beast, in that the spirit of a man goes upward, whereas the spirit of an animal does not. The Preacher is still not clear in his theology, as he is viewing things from an earthly perspective, but there is a hint of this.

And, Jesus himself gave his spirit to God at the moment of his death. Did he just give up his breath?

Anyways, claiming that man has no spirit is a pretty shallow claim, if you are basing it on the underlying Hebrew or Greek words, because the same exact words are used in regards to the Holy Spirit, and you would not claim that the Holy Spirit is just God's breath. In fact, if you claim God needs oxygen, which he must expire, that's even more shallow. It's reducing God to the human processes of respiration, as if he needs to breathe.

But, this is exactly what conditional moralists try to palm off as meaningful arguments.

And, to answer your claim about me having "the Truth" and going back into error...no, the reality is that Armstrongism and similar theologies such as the Seventh Day Adventists are not "the Truth" like they claim. They are individuals who think they stumbled onto the scene in the 1830's, and are a restoration of the true faith, which has not been taught since the Apostolic era. Somehow, they think that they are in a position to correct the rest of Christianity, who they feel has absorbed pagan philosophies and false teachings.
Never mind that their doctrine came from individuals who initially denied the fully deity of Christ and their prophetess was probably brain damaged due to a childhood incident where she was struck in the head with a rock. Armstrongism actually derived much of their doctrine from them. Their claim that they have "the Truth" is a false claim.

And, having been a part of a cult, I can tell anyone reading this that groups such as them claim to have "the Truth" and believe that outsiders do not. Adventists may acknowledge that others can be Christians but they believe they are the true faith and the true Church. Armstrongites are much worse.

By the way, my guess is that virtually no people who hold the "soul sleep" doctrine have a good understanding of Greek or Hebrew. They don't realize the implications of their claims. I know that the Armstrongite cult I belonged to....very few if any Greek scholars.

This is besides the fact that words have a domain of possible meanings. Just because "ruach" CAN mean breath or wind doesn't mean that it ALWAYS means this. This seems to be the claim that is being made by some mortalists because of their shallow understanding.

Spirit is invisible, like the wind, yet still powerful, and that is why ruach or pneuma is used to describe spirit. Like I have said, it is used in regards to the Holy Spirit, and no one with sound theology would describe Him as simply "wind" or "breath".

Holy Spirit (Hebrew) - Ruach Ha'Kodesh
Holy Spirit (Greek) - Hagio Pneuma

Kodesh and Hagio both mean "Holy". Ruach and Pneuma mean "breath", "wind", "spirit"
Ha' is simply an article distinguishig it as "the".

By the way, I have been fooled by shallow arguments like this in the past from supposedly credible sources of information. People who believe these sorts of arguments really need to do deeper research, and not simply read cultic literature. I would be willing to bet money this guy studied materials from SDAs or Armstrongites on this topic. In the case of Armstrong, I know for sure that his understanding on issues like this was full of error and propagandistic. His real intent was to discredit Christianity, and exalt his own religion.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I just look at all the church names and that looks like veneration to me. And I'll have you to know I have read all of the "Confessions" and still see the Roman Catholic influence therein. I participate on another forum that is all Reformed and I know somewhat about it.

I've never met a Reformed person who prays to saints or venerates them in any way.

And, I haven't paid attention to church names, but I don't recollect any with the name "Saint" in them. Although technically this would not be wrong because every believer could be called a saint.

I am positive no sound Reformed person would be venerating saints.

And, in regards to internet forums, there are any number of people online in forums that do not have a sound understanding of Christian teaching. For instance, if someone claims they are going to become just like God, in terms of his being, they are not reflecting sound Christian theology, and in fact are blaspheming.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Soul do not go to sleep six feet under the soil. So that is simply another absurd doctrine based up misinterpreting the Bible.

You are correct. I never once said that the body goes to sleep six feet under the soil. I have always maintained and preached that the Soul is what goes to sleep and the soul doesn't go to sleep while still in the grave. The souls of the righteous under the shed blood of Christ go to the Bosom of Abraham and the wicked always go to a place of torment but the body stays in the grave and rots. Both places are located in Hades. One is called Gehenna and the other is called the Bosom of Abraham. The soul is not ever six feet the soil. Only the body is six feet under the soil. The soul always goes to Hades which is a combo of Geheena and the Bosom of Abraham. Scripture never tells us how deep the Bosom of Abraham is except that it is in the lower parts of the earth.

Did I post the first line? I don't remember it.

Anyways, I realize this part is a view that some Christians hold. I don't agree with them about this dual compartment of Hades, but I can see where they derive their view of it.

Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended FIRST into the lower PARTS OF THE EARTH?
So do you know how far under ground the Lower parts of the earth are??? OR are you calling Paul a liar or misguided when he stated that Christ first descended into the lower parts of the earth and BEFORE CHRIST ASCENDED???
Are you calling the Word of God a liar when it tells us that there is such a realm as a place of torment where the rich man was suffering horrible torment???
Are calling Christ a liar when He told us that Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham????
If Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham and the rich man was in a place of torment, what was in their graves six feet under???

To start with, I don't hold your view on this verse:

Ephesians 4:9-10 9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
(ESV Strong's)

My position is that Jesus descended, in the sense of the Incarnation. It is not talking about a descent into Hades, but is talking about the Incarnation, where he "descended" to dwell with mankind as a human being and to atone for their sins. He then ascended, following the resurrection, to the throne of God.

And, please don't use rhetoric such as claiming that I am calling Jesus a liar. Obviously since I'm appealing to Scripture, I believe in sola Scriptura.

Regarding Lazarus and the Rich Man, the abode of Lazarus is viewed as being separated from the abode of the rich man by an impenetrable barrier. I believe that the spirit of the wicked is being held in conscious torment in some location called Hades, and Lazarus is in the presence of Christ in heaven. There's nothing in conflict with this view in the parable. There is an insurmountable barrier between them, and the wicked cannot affect those in heaven, in the presence of God.

You may ask me, what about this verse:

John 3:13 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
(ESV Strong's)

My position would be that "ascension" relates to being in a resurrection body, fully vindicated by God, as Christ was. The dead, who are in the presence of God now, are not fully complete yet. They are still lacking their resurrection body, to be given to them when they return with Jesus.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; This verse is telling us the BY THE QUICKENED SPIRIT Christ was able to go and preach to the spirits in prison. Which tells us that it wasn't His body that first descended it was His spirit!!!
His body was still in the tomb they put it in after He died.
Do you know anything about the "SPIRITS IN PRISON??? Do you know where the prison is located??? Is it six feet under or someplace else???

1 Peter 3:18-20 8 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
(ESV Strong's)

My position on these verses is that Noah preached to the individuals at Noah's time in the spirit of Christ, so in essence Christ preached to them and warned them of the disaster to come if they did not repent.

Here are some notes on this from a study Bible that I respect:

1 Peter 3:19 3:19–20a These difficult verses have been understood in three very different ways. Traditionally they have been used to support the idea that Jesus descended into hell on the Saturday between his crucifixion and resurrection—when his body was dead but his spirit remained alive (v. 18). At that time he preached either to the souls of people who were disobedient in the days of Noah or to fallen angels who had incited humans to such evil that God sent the flood at the time of Noah to destroy it (Gen 6:1–7). A second view is that the preincarnate Christ preached through Noah to the wicked generation destroyed by the flood. A third view is that Christ’s resurrection and ascension were the proclamation of victory over the most extreme powers of evil the earth has ever known, which these “imprisoned spirits” represent. With Jesus’ victory over death, their condemnation was sealed.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)

Maybe you should spend a little time researching the word Hell. You will find that the word Hell is actually translated from the Greek words Hades and Gehenna and the Prison is located is another realm in the lower parts of the earth called Tartarus. All 3 word sof which King James changed to the word HEll. But a little research would reveal the true meanins of each word translated to the word Hell.

I doubt that King James changed the wording.

Hell can be translated three different ways in the Greek:

1. Hades - the grave, or the abode of the dead. It is comparable to Sheol in the Hebrew - a shadowy underworld
2. Gehenna - a place of fiery destruction, associate with the Valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where trash was burned
3. Tartarus - the place where the evil angels were imprisoned.

The only time Tartarus is used, it is discussing the abode of evil angels.

Hades is used to refer to the place where the rich man was at, but it is used in reference to the grave in general.

In other words, while I see that Hades can be used in regards to the place the rich man was at, in terms of conscious existence, I don't see this idea that the righteous dead are in Hades in a conscious existence. Instead, they are in Paradise with Jesus, which is where the thief on the Cross went.

And, I believe that Hades can simply apply to the place where the body goes after death, which is in the ground or grave.

So, I am familiar with the underlying Greek words. I think the biggest disagreement we would have relates 1) to the state of the person who died in Christ, which I believe is a conscious existence in the presence of Christ in heaven and 2) the fact that Hades can refer simply to the body being in the ground. I agree the word can be used to describe the place where the Rich Man went, in terms of a place of fiery punishment preceding the Lake of Fire, but I believe you are limiting its' usage in a manner that is not reflective of Scripture.

I also acknowledge that your view has been taught in the past, concerning the twin compartments of Hades. I don't know too many people who claim the righteous dead are sleeping in Abraham's bosom, though. Do you think the rich man saw Lazarus asleep in Abraham's bosom? In other words, was Lazarus requesting that God wake him up from his nap to send him to his brothers?

 

[massorite]

Your prior research means nothing to me. My guess is you started with studying teachings from either the Seventh Day Adventists or Armstrongites. It would be interesting to know where you got your ideas from.

Ecclesiastes is that the Preacher, who is probably Solomon, is talking about life from a carnal perspective, without the eternal perspective. Using proof-texting from this book to prove your theories is not wise.

Regarding the Hebrew word for spirit (Ruach), you know, you really have to be shallow to claim that your exegesis is correct in this regard. For instance, the Holy Spirit is called Ruach Ha'Kodesh. Ruach CAN indicate breath or wind, but no one would claim that the Holy Spirit is merely God's breath. Even the Seventh Day Adventists don't believe that.

So, to claim there is no spirit related to man's nature which goes back to God is incorrect. Additionally, Ecclesiastes 3:21 indicates that there is a qualitative difference between man and beast, in that the spirit of a man goes upward, whereas the spirit of an animal does not. The Preacher is still not clear in his theology, as he is viewing things from an earthly perspective, but there is a hint of this.

And, Jesus himself gave his spirit to God at the moment of his death. Did he just give up his breath?

Anyways, claiming that man has no spirit is a pretty shallow claim, if you are basing it on the underlying Hebrew or Greek words, because the same exact words are used in regards to the Holy Spirit, and you would not claim that the Holy Spirit is just God's breath. In fact, if you claim God needs oxygen, which he must expire, that's even more shallow. It's reducing God to the human processes of respiration, as if he needs to breathe.

But, this is exactly what conditional moralists try to palm off as meaningful arguments.

And, to answer your claim about me having "the Truth" and going back into error...no, the reality is that Armstrongism and similar theologies such as the Seventh Day Adventists are not "the Truth" like they claim. They are individuals who think they stumbled onto the scene in the 1830's, and are a restoration of the true faith, which has not been taught since the Apostolic era. Somehow, they think that they are in a position to correct the rest of Christianity, who they feel has absorbed pagan philosophies and false teachings.
Never mind that their doctrine came from individuals who initially denied the fully deity of Christ and their prophetess was probably brain damaged due to a childhood incident where she was struck in the head with a rock. Armstrongism actually derived much of their doctrine from them. Their claim that they have "the Truth" is a false claim.

And, having been a part of a cult, I can tell anyone reading this that groups such as them claim to have "the Truth" and believe that outsiders do not. Adventists may acknowledge that others can be Christians but they believe they are the true faith and the true Church. Armstrongites are much worse.

By the way, my guess is that virtually no people who hold the "soul sleep" doctrine have a good understanding of Greek or Hebrew. They on't realize the implications of their claims. I know that the Armstrongite cult I belonged to....very few if any Greek scholars.

This is besides the fact that words have a domain of possible meanings. Just because "ruach" CAN mean breath or wind doesn't mean that it ALWAYS means this. This seems to be the claim that is being made by some mortalists because of their shallow understanding.

Spirit is invisible, like the wind, yet still powerful, and that is why ruach or pneuma is used to describe spirit. Like I have said, it is used in regards to the Holy Spirit, and no one with sound theology would describe Him as simply "wind" or "breath".

Holy Spirit (Hebrew) - Ruach Ha'Kodesh
Holy Spirit (Greek) - Hagio Pneuma

Kodesh and Hagio both mean "Holy". Ruach and Pneuma mean "breath", "wind", "spirit"
Ha' is simply an article distinguishig it as "the".

By the way, I have been fooled by shallow arguments like this in the past from supposedly credible sources of information. People who believe these sorts of arguments really need to do deeper research, and not simply read cultic literature. I would be willing to bet money this guy studied materials from SDAs or Armstrongites on this topic. In the case of Armstrong, I know for sure that his understanding on issues like this was full of error and propagandistic. His real intent was to discredit Christianity, and exalt his own religion.

Sorry but I have never set foot in a Seventh Day Adventist church. They did come knocking on my door once and when I finally got exasperated with them because they wouldn't take a hint I asked them if I gave them a quarter would they leave and they said yes. So I gave them a quarter and they left and I don't know who or what the Armstrongites are.
I use the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, The Thayer's Greek -English Lexicon, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. So I don't need to know one single thing about the Greek or Hebrew languages because the Strong's gives me a shallow interpretation of a word and the number I need to look up a word in the Thayer's and the BDB Lexicons and both the Thayer's and the BDB are the result of many scholars of the Greek and the Hebrew languages and Bible scholars. So the research has been done for me by lots reputable and educated people. Everything you wrote in this post is everything the three study tools I use tell me both with the Hebrew and Greek spelling and the English interpretations. I could take the time as you have done to spell out each word in the Greek and Hebrew but to most folks the spelling is useless.
The word in "Spirit" in Eccl. 12:7 is spelled "ruah" and does mean wind and Breath according to the Strong's which tells me all I need to know about that word "Spirit" in that verse without spending one single hour in a class to learn about that Hebrew language. The many authors of the study tools have all done the research and work for me.
So in spite of my challenge for you to come up with one single scripture that I can dissect to see what each word means in that verse you have once again failed to come up with a verse to prove soul sleep is a false doctrine and so has everyone else on this thread.
There have been a lot of verses quoted on this thread to prove that soul sleep is not biblical but after being dissected my belief that soul sleep is a correct conclusion to the many researched verses that talk about the dead as being in a state sleep, my stand is re-enforced. All I have gotten on this thread are opinions either from the folks quoting the verses or quoted from someone else's opinion. Which is why I never depend on any kind of commentary because it is nothing more then someone else's opinion. I also understand that one word can have more then one meaning or application which why I depend on the study tools I use to properly show me what the application is in a particular verse.

 

[massorite]

Did I post the first line? I don't remember it.

Anyways, I realize this part is a view that some Christians hold. I don't agree with them about this dual compartment of Hades, but I can see where they derive their view of it.



To start with, I don't hold your view on this verse:

Ephesians 4:9-10 9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
(ESV Strong's)

My position is that Jesus descended, in the sense of the Incarnation. It is not talking about a descent into Hades, but is talking about the Incarnation, where he "descended" to dwell with mankind as a human being and to atone for their sins. He then ascended, following the resurrection, to the throne of God.

And, please don't use rhetoric such as claiming that I am calling Jesus a liar. Obviously since I'm appealing to Scripture, I believe in sola Scriptura.

Regarding Lazarus and the Rich Man, the abode of Lazarus is viewed as being separated from the abode of the rich man by an impenetrable barrier. I believe that the spirit of the wicked is being held in conscious torment in some location called Hades, and Lazarus is in the presence of Christ in heaven. There's nothing in conflict with this view in the parable. There is an insurmountable barrier between them, and the wicked cannot affect those in heaven, in the presence of God.

You may ask me, what about this verse:

John 3:13 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
(ESV Strong's)

My position would be that "ascension" relates to being in a resurrection body, fully vindicated by God, as Christ was. The dead, who are in the presence of God now, are not fully complete yet. They are still lacking their resurrection body, to be given to them when they return with Jesus.



1 Peter 3:18-20 8 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
(ESV Strong's)

My position on these verses is that Noah preached to the individuals at Noah's time in the spirit of Christ, so in essence Christ preached to them and warned them of the disaster to come if they did not repent.

Here are some notes on this from a study Bible that I respect:

1 Peter 3:19 3:19–20a These difficult verses have been understood in three very different ways. Traditionally they have been used to support the idea that Jesus descended into hell on the Saturday between his crucifixion and resurrection—when his body was dead but his spirit remained alive (v. 18). At that time he preached either to the souls of people who were disobedient in the days of Noah or to fallen angels who had incited humans to such evil that God sent the flood at the time of Noah to destroy it (Gen 6:1–7). A second view is that the preincarnate Christ preached through Noah to the wicked generation destroyed by the flood. A third view is that Christ’s resurrection and ascension were the proclamation of victory over the most extreme powers of evil the earth has ever known, which these “imprisoned spirits” represent. With Jesus’ victory over death, their condemnation was sealed.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)



I doubt that King James changed the wording.

Hell can be translated three different ways in the Greek:

1. Hades - the grave, or the abode of the dead. It is comparable to Sheol in the Hebrew - a shadowy underworld
2. Gehenna - a place of fiery destruction, associate with the Valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where trash was burned
3. Tartarus - the place where the evil angels were imprisoned.

The only time Tartarus is used, it is discussing the abode of evil angels.

Hades is used to refer to the place where the rich man was at, but it is used in reference to the grave in general.

In other words, while I see that Hades can be used in regards to the place the rich man was at, in terms of conscious existence, I don't see this idea that the righteous dead are in Hades in a conscious existence. Instead, they are in Paradise with Jesus, which is where the thief on the Cross went.

And, I believe that Hades can simply apply to the place where the body goes after death, which is in the ground or grave.

So, I am familiar with the underlying Greek words. I think the biggest disagreement we would have relates 1) to the state of the person who died in Christ, which I believe is a conscious existence in the presence of Christ in heaven and 2) the fact that Hades can refer simply to the body being in the ground. I agree the word can be used to describe the place where the Rich Man went, in terms of a place of fiery punishment preceding the Lake of Fire, but I believe you are limiting its' usage in a manner that is not reflective of Scripture.

I also acknowledge that your view has been taught in the past, concerning the twin compartments of Hades. I don't know too many people who claim the righteous dead are sleeping in Abraham's bosom, though. Do you think the rich man saw Lazarus asleep in Abraham's bosom? In other words, was Lazarus requesting that God wake him up from his nap to send him to his brothers?

Sorry but in my opinion you are very much misguided.
In other words, was Lazarus requesting that God wake him up from his nap to send him to his brothers?
WOW ! Lazarus didn't make any request through out the whole parable. The rich man did who was definitely not asleep and suffering great torment. It is the soul that is tormented not the body. If Christ is our example then the soul looks like and feels like the body but is a glorified body just as scripture says. The rich mans could feel all of the pain as if it were his fleshly body but it was his souls. BUT the flesh stays in the grave and rots.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Sorry but I have never set foot in a Seventh Day Adventist church. They did come knocking on my door once and when I finally got exasperated with them because they wouldn't take a hint I asked them if I gave them a quarter would they leave and they said yes. So I gave them a quarter and they left and I don't know who or what the Armstrongites are.
I use the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, The Thayer's Greek -English Lexicon, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. So I don't need to know one single thing about the Greek or Hebrew languages because the Strong's gives me a shallow interpretation of a word and the number I need to look up a word in the Thayer's and the BDB Lexicons and both the Thayer's and the BDB are the result of many scholars of the Greek and the Hebrew languages and Bible scholars. So the research has been done for me by lots reputable and educated people. Everything you wrote in this post is everything the three study tools I use tell me both with the Hebrew and Greek spelling and the English interpretations. I could take the time as you have done to spell out each word in the Greek and Hebrew but to most folks the spelling is useless.
The word in "Spirit" in Eccl. 12:7 is spelled "ruah" and does mean wind and Breath according to the Strong's which tells me all I need to know about that word "Spirit" in that verse without spending one single hour in a class to learn about that Hebrew language. The many authors of the study tools have all done the research and work for me.
So in spite of my challenge for you to come up with one single scripture that I can dissect to see what each word means in that verse you have once again failed to come up with a verse to prove soul sleep is a false doctrine and so has everyone else on this thread.
There have been a lot of verses quoted on this thread to prove that soul sleep is not biblical but after being dissected my belief that soul sleep is a correct conclusion to the many researched verses that talk about the dead as being in a state sleep, my stand is re-enforced. All I have gotten on this thread are opinions either from the folks quoting the verses or quoted from someone else's opinion. Which is why I never depend on any kind of commentary because it is nothing more then someone else's opinion. I also understand that one word can have more then one meaning or application which why I depend on the study tools I use to properly show me what the application is in a particular verse.

I already explained to you that the word "ruach" is used in reference to the Holy Spirit. He is called "Ruach Ha'Kodesh".

So, if you claim that the word "ruach" cannot mean spirit, you are in error.

Same with "pneuma".

And, I wasn't sure if you are trying to correct me on spelling, but you should know that "ruach" is only a transliteration, and it is common to use "ch" to refer to the sound, rather than "h" alone. The English equivalent is only a transliteration.

For instance, some spell Hannukah "Channukah" and this is why. The sound is actually a throaty sound that can't be represented by a single English letter.

Regarding using tools like you mentioned, they are useful but context is important, and that is why a deeper understanding of Hebrew or Greek is necessary on troublesome passages. Some guy with his Strong's isn't equipped to deal with precise issues, as many other factors need considered.

I'm sorry that you seem unable to understand what I have said, but I will simply inform others that your claims are bogus. They are proven to be bogus because "ruach" is used to refer to the Holy Spirit, and unless one is prepared to reduce the Holy Spirit to a breath or wind, your exegesis makes no sense. But, it is precisely the type of argument other guys use in this regard.

I suggest that folks understand how both ruach and pneuma are used in regards to the Holy Spirit. This proves that their simple way of thinking in this regard has issues.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Soul-sleep is just another of the myriads of false teachings that have crept into the church by false teachers and those who carry those teachings forward. We are told in scripture that this would happen and it has and continues.

1 Thessalonians 4:
[13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep...[14]...them...which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him...[18]...comfort one another with these words.

1. Paul never makes a distinction here regarding soul or body.

2. I would bet most professing believers do not comfort one another with these words without adding to them.

3. If believers upon death go immediately to be with the Lord Paul sure missed the perfect opportunity to teach how that happens in this portion of scripture where he plainly stated USE THESE WORDS.

Tabitha (a disciple) was brought back to life by Peter (Acts 9:40). I can’t fathom a situation where a believer has died, gone to heaven, experienced all the riches and joy of being in the presence of the Lord, only to be brought back to this present evil world (Galatians 1:4).

One need not join a cult to get this teaching. The Bible itself implies this.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Sorry but in my opinion you are very much misguided.
In other words, was Lazarus requesting that God wake him up from his nap to send him to his brothers?
WOW ! Lazarus didn't make any request through out the whole parable. The rich man did who was definitely not asleep and suffering great torment. It is the soul that is tormented not the body. If Christ is our example then the soul looks like and feels like the body but is a glorified body just as scripture says. The rich mans could feel all of the pain as if it were his fleshly body but it was his souls. BUT the flesh stays in the grave and rots.

OK..I obviously made a mistake..I was asking, did the rich man request that God wake Lazarus up from his sleep to send him to the rich man's brothers? I simply confused the two in my composition.

If I'm not mistaken you believe the righteous are asleep in Hades, as you conceive it, so Lazarus would be asleep in this scenario.

And, you are betraying a big issue here. You apparently don't believe that Jesus had a resurrection body. It sounds like you believe he was only a spirit after the resurrection, and this would be a false view that denies the bodily resurrection. It would be the "spirit resurrection" view of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In fact, to claim that Jesus didn't resurrect bodily is a false teaching involving a core Christian belief.

When Jesus was resurrected, his body was resurrected. It was no longer in the tomb. The body was then glorified, or changed in composition to reflect spiritual characteristics. It was still a material body, but it was changed in terms of its characteristics. It is no longer perishable, but is imperishable. It is no longer in disgrace, but it is in glory. It is not a "spirit body" but is glorified.

See, the reality here is you don't even believe basic Christian teaching. Basic Christian teaching is that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and this body was changed or glorified. It was still a material body, but it had different characteristics that are fit to inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth.

The fact that his body was no longer there is proof that the resurrection is bodily and not a spirit resurrection. Both Lazarus and the rich man had a body somewhere, so they are in a different situation than Jesus. Jesus' body was not in the tomb.

Regarding the composition of the rich man's body, I don't know about that. But, I know believers will have a glorified material body which they receive at the resurrection. At this point, they are a disembodied spirit in the presence of Christ.

And my position on this is basic Crhistianity. In fact, the bodily resurrection is a core Christian teaching.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Sorry but in my opinion you are very much misguided.
In other words, was Lazarus requesting that God wake him up from his nap to send him to his brothers?
WOW ! Lazarus didn't make any request through out the whole parable. The rich man did who was definitely not asleep and suffering great torment. It is the soul that is tormented not the body. If Christ is our example then the soul looks like and feels like the body but is a glorified body just as scripture says. The rich mans could feel all of the pain as if it were his fleshly body but it was his souls. BUT the flesh stays in the grave and rots.

Jesus' Resurrection was physical
by Matt Slick
The resurrection of Jesus is a fundamental and essential doctrine of Christianity. The resurrection of Jesus is so important that without it Christianity is false. Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." Three verses later, in verse 17, he again says, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." Though there are many subjects with which Christians may disagree and still be considered Christian, this is not one of them. To deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the heart of Christianity itself.
However, the problem in the resurrection isn't so much in agreeing that Jesus rose but in how He rose. Unfortunately, cults attack the resurrection of Christ and reinterpret it in different ways thereby denying His physical resurrection. We must ask if Jesus rose from the dead in the very same body He died in, or did He rise in a spirit body that was not flesh and bones? The answer to this question is vital. It separates true Christians from false systems. Therefore, here is the correct doctrine of Christ's resurrection; I consider it so important that it must be set off by itself as a statement of truth:

"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."​

The above statement is the correct doctrine of Scripture. As such, it stands against the Jehovah's Witness and the Shepherd's Chapel groups that state that Jesus did not rise bodily but spiritually. Neither group seeks to deny the obvious biblical declaration of Christ's resurrection; but they change the meaning of the resurrection, so that it really didn't happen. Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same physical body in which He died? Yes!
After the resurrection, Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:42-43). He showed people His hands and feet with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:39; John 20:27), and people even grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9). As the reports of Jesus' resurrection were spreading, Thomas, who was doubting the resurrection of Christ, said, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." (John 20:25). Later, Jesus appeared to Thomas and said to him, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." (John 20:27).
If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. Consider the following verses as further proof that His very body was raised:

• "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord." (John 20:19-20).
• "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).

It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same body in which He died--with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones. Does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? Not at all.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I have heard it said that Jesus' physical body died, but His spiritual body was raised. If this is so, then does the spiritual body consist of flesh and bones as well as the physical one? It makes no sense. Also, if Jesus did not rise physically, then what happened to His body? Was it dissolved? Was it moved somewhere? There is no biblical account of what happened to Jesus' body other than that it was raised from the dead. Therefore, His body was raised from the dead.
John 2:19-21

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21).​

The phrase "I will raise" is translated from the single Greek word "egeiro." "Egeiro" is the future, active, indicative, 1st-person singular. The active voice in Greek designates who is performing the action. In this case, since it is first person, singular ("I"), Jesus is saying that He Himself would perform the action of the resurrection. This is precisely what the Greek says.
However, some still deny that Jesus rose from the dead physically--even when examining John 2:19-21. We can clearly see that Jesus prophesied that He would raise up the temple of His body as is clarified in verse 21 by John the apostle who states that Jesus was speaking of "the temple of his body." Therefore, this should be conclusive proof that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body in which He died. Clearly, John 2:19-21 shows us that Jesus predicted He would raise His very body--and He did so. Is this enough to put this issue to rest? You'd think so but resistance persists.
1 Cor. 15:35, 39, 42-44

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?. . . 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. . . 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.​

Verse 44 above is used in an attempt to establish the idea that Jesus did not rise physically but spiritually. Of course, I've already established above that Jesus was raised in the same body He died in--with the same holes in His hands and feet. We also saw that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Again, does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? The scripture nowhere declares such a thing.
Paul is not stating that there are two separate bodies to each person, the physical and the spiritual; and that after the physical one dies, the second and different spirit body takes over. Rather, when referencing the same body, he states, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (v. 44). The "it" is referring to the same body in both clauses--not separate and different ones. This same body becomes a resurrected body--which is the spiritual body to which He is referring. In other words, the spiritual body is the very same body he previously had, though it had been changed into a spiritual one.

"For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15:53-54).​

Our perishable and mortal bodies put on the imperishable and immortal aspects of the spiritual body which is the physically resurrected and changed body of the believer. Jesus was simply the first fruits of this resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Therefore, we can see that our future resurrected bodies will be spiritual bodies. But, those spiritual bodies are in fact physical--the same bodies we have now only glorified. Otherwise, there is no resurrection.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

By the say, if I am criticized (again) for posting someone else's work, my simple response is that I don't recreate wheels. This article summarizes the bodily resurrection.

When Jesus was bodily resurrected, his body was no longer in the grave. That is because it was resurrected. Resurrection does not mean being changed to spirit. It means that the body is material, but has characteristics that are spiritual in some sense. However, it is still the same body, only perfected and no longer corruptible.

It is a body that is fit to live on the New Heavens and New Earth.

This body, for the believer, is received at the resurrection. Jesus is the firstfruits, so he already has this body.

Any understanding of the Lazarus and the Rich Man account must take this into understanding. We know that both of them still had bodies that were in the grave at this time, assuming that the time frame is prior to the General Judgment at Jesus' return.

However, it is wrong to say that they had resurrection bodies like Jesus' prior to this time.

 

[massorite]

Jesus' Resurrection was physical
by Matt Slick

If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. Consider the following verses as further proof that His very body was raised:

• "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord." (John 20:19-20).
• "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).

It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same body in which He died--with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones. Does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? Not at all.

I never said that the body of Christ wasn't flesh. But I do say that the body of Christ was not the same kind of flesh that He died with. And I have never said that His resurrection wasn't physical. But I do maintain that the Body Christ had was a glorified body that was raised from the grave INCORRUPTABLE. Why ??? Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Proof that the body of Christ was not flesh and blood but instead was a glorified body is in Php. 3:20-21.
Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Jesus after He was raised from the grave could walk through walls. He could disappear and reappear at will.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
After Christ was raised from the grave he still had the open wounds in His hands and feet and thegapping hole in His side but He was no longer bleeding and offered to let Thomas put his finger inside of the wounds. He had no pain because of those wounds.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
After Christ was raised from the grave He was able to change/alter His apparance so that He was unrecognizable.
Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
1Co 15:52 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.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The body of Christ didn't see corruption because that was the will of God. But for the rest of us?? Our bodies of flesh rot and it is the soul which falls into a state of sleep until the resurrection when Christ returns.
SO AGAIN I SAY THAT THE FLESH BEGINS TO CORRUPT/ROT AT THE POINT OF DEATH AND it was the soul of the rich man that was suffering and it was the soul of Lazarus that was in the Bosom of Abraham.

This is the very reason I never look to commentaries to help me understand scripture.
"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died.
Your guy Mr. Matt Slick made a major contradiction in his little commentary. Christ did not raise from the grave with the "very same physical body in which He died. Mr slick goes on to tell us that the body Christ had after He was raise from the grave was a glorified body and never see's his obvious mistake. A Glorified body is not the same kind of body as a body of flesh and blood.
The body Christ died with was a body of flesh and blood. But the body Christ was raised with was a glorified body not made of flesh and blood but looked like the same body He died with. A body of flesh can't walk through walls, have gaping wounds that don't hurt or bleed. Though Christ could eat fish the glorified body doesn't need food for survival.
But it is the body that all of us will have when we are presented to the Father as an acceptable gift by Christ in heaven after we are resurrected and meet Christ in the glory of God.

This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Here is another contradiction. Christ tells us that his body is not a spirit body because a spirit body has no flesh and bones in the above verse. So who is correct?? Your guy Matt Slick or Christ??? Which is it??? A body of flesh and blood/bone as in the body Christ died with or a glorified body???
Your guy Matt Slick is all mixed up and you are quoting this guy as if he know what he is talking about. This makes you look bad if I can find the apparent contradictions you should have also seen them if you were paying close attention to what he was saying.

 

[Ahwatukee]

1 Thessalonians 4:
[13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep...[14]...them...which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him...[18]...comfort one another with these words.

1. Paul never makes a distinction here regarding soul or body.

Hello Micaiah!

In the scripture that you provided above, Paul is speaking about the resurrection of the dead and in the following verses those who would still be alive, changed and caught up at the time that the resurrection takes place. The word "anastasis" translated as "Resurrection" always refers to the physical body standing up again. Those who sleep in Christ, is referring to the bodies of those who have die in Christ. When the resurrection takes place, the Lord will bring with Him the spirits of those who have been in heaven waiting for the resurrection. At that time their spirits will be reunited with their resurrected bodies, which will be raised immortal and glorified. Regarding the death of the righteous, sleep always refers to the body and not the spirit. As we have demonstrated in previous posts and with many scriptures, the spirit is conscious and aware after the death of the body.

2. I would bet most professing believers do not comfort one another with these words without adding to them.

Teaching on the resurrection and it taking place prior to God's wrath i.e. before seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, is what I am always contending for and thereby comforting other with those words. If the resurrection took place after God's wrath when Jesus returns to the earth to end the age, then there would be nothing to comfort each other about, because believers would be going through God's wrath the same as the unbelievers. This is why in I Thess.4:18 He says, "Therefore, comfort one another with these words." Trials and tribulations for our faith, which comes at the hands of men and the powers of darkness is honorable and glorifying to God. But being subjected to God's unprecedented coming wrath, will not be an honorable thing. It is more honorable to be ready for the Lord when He comes to gather His church prior to His wrath. However, there will be those who are caught in that time period who will resist the beast, his image and his mark, which will be the great tribulation saints.

3. If believers upon death go immediately to be with the Lord Paul sure missed the perfect opportunity to teach how that happens in this portion of scripture where he plainly stated USE THESE WORDS.

Not all information is repeated every time a specific subject comes up. In Thess.4 after Paul teaches on the resurrection and the living being changed and caught up, he says, "And so we will always be with the Lord." However, when we take into consideration 2 Cor.5:6 and Phil.1:21-23, we see the teaching regarding the state of the spirit after the body dies, which departs and goes to be in the presence of the Lord.

Tabitha (a disciple) was brought back to life by Peter (Acts 9:40). I can’t fathom a situation where a believer has died, gone to heaven, experienced all the riches and joy of being in the presence of the Lord, only to be brought back to this present evil world (Galatians 1:4).

One need not join a cult to get this teaching. The Bible itself implies this.

Regarding Tabitha, which was a twelve year old girl who died, was brought back to life, not in her immortal and glorified body, but in the same mortal body. Based on this, I know that her spirit returned to her body.

"But Jesus took her by the hand and called out, “Child, get up!” Her spirit returned, and at once she got up."

So, in the verse above, we see that at the time of death her spirit departed from her body. And when the Lord revived her, her spirit returned to her body. I don't pretend to know where she was, but I know that her spirit departed and returned.

Regarding this, I assure you that, I am not apart of a cult, but proclaim and contend for the truth of God's word, diligently searching it out.

 

[massorite]

OK..I obviously made a mistake..I was asking, did the rich man request that God wake Lazarus up from his sleep to send him to the rich man's brothers? I simply confused the two in my composition.

If I'm not mistaken you believe the righteous are asleep in Hades, as you conceive it, so Lazarus would be asleep in this scenario.

And, you are betraying a big issue here. You apparently don't believe that Jesus had a resurrection body. It sounds like you believe he was only a spirit after the resurrection, and this would be a false view that denies the bodily resurrection. It would be the "spirit resurrection" view of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In fact, to claim that Jesus didn't resurrect bodily is a false teaching involving a core Christian belief.

When Jesus was resurrected, his body was resurrected. It was no longer in the tomb. The body was then glorified, or changed in composition to reflect spiritual characteristics. It was still a material body, but it was changed in terms of its characteristics. It is no longer perishable, but is imperishable. It is no longer in disgrace, but it is in glory. It is not a "spirit body" but is glorified.

See, the reality here is you don't even believe basic Christian teaching. Basic Christian teaching is that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and this body was changed or glorified. It was still a material body, but it had different characteristics that are fit to inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth.

The fact that his body was no longer there is proof that the resurrection is bodily and not a spirit resurrection. Both Lazarus and the rich man had a body somewhere, so they are in a different situation than Jesus. Jesus' body was not in the tomb.

Regarding the composition of the rich man's body, I don't know about that. But, I know believers will have a glorified material body which they receive at the resurrection. At this point, they are a disembodied spirit in the presence of Christ.

And my position on this is basic Crhistianity. In fact, the bodily resurrection is a core Christian teaching.

When Jesus was resurrected, his body was resurrected. It was no longer in the tomb. The body was then glorified, or changed in composition to reflect spiritual characteristics. It was still a material body, but it was changed in terms of its characteristics. It is no longer perishable, but is imperishable. It is no longer in disgrace, but it is in glory. It is not a "spirit body" but is glorified.
Ok now we are coming to at least some kind of understanding. I agree.
See, the reality here is you don't even believe basic Christian teaching. Basic Christian teaching is that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and this body was changed or glorified. It was still a material body, but it had different characteristics that are fit to inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth.
No you are misunderstanding me. Just because I believe in soul sleep doesn't mean I don't believe in a material glorified body.
I do believe that it is the soul of the rich man and Lazarus that are in Hades. I never said that Lazarus wouldn't have a glorified body when they were raised from the grave. That would be contrary to scripture.
If I'm not mistaken you believe the righteous are asleep in Hades, as you conceive it, so Lazarus would be asleep in this scenario.
Yes that is exactly what I believe. Lazarus never says a single word through out the whole exchange between the rich man and Lazarus that the Lazarus in the parable and the Lazarus the Christ raised from the grave are one and the same Lazarus.
The fact that his body was no longer there is proof that the resurrection is bodily and not a spirit resurrection. Both Lazarus and the rich man had a body somewhere, so they are in a different situation than Jesus. Jesus' body was not in the tomb.
I agree. The body of Lazarus and the rich man were still in a tombs that were placed in after death. Rotting.

 

[Ahwatukee]

When Jesus was resurrected, his body was resurrected. It was no longer in the tomb. The body was then glorified, or changed in composition to reflect spiritual characteristics. It was still a material body, but it was changed in terms of its characteristics. It is no longer perishable, but is imperishable. It is no longer in disgrace, but it is in glory. It is not a "spirit body" but is glorified.
Ok now we are coming to at least some kind of understanding. I agree.
See, the reality here is you don't even believe basic Christian teaching. Basic Christian teaching is that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and this body was changed or glorified. It was still a material body, but it had different characteristics that are fit to inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth.
No you are misunderstanding me. Just because I believe in soul sleep doesn't mean I don't believe in a material glorified body.
I do believe that it is the soul of the rich man and Lazarus that are in Hades. I never said that Lazarus wouldn't have a glorified body when they were raised from the grave. That would be contrary to scripture.
If I'm not mistaken you believe the righteous are asleep in Hades, as you conceive it, so Lazarus would be asleep in this scenario.
Yes that is exactly what I believe. Lazarus never says a single word through out the whole exchange between the rich man and Lazarus that the Lazarus in the parable and the Lazarus the Christ raised from the grave are one and the same Lazarus.
The fact that his body was no longer there is proof that the resurrection is bodily and not a spirit resurrection. Both Lazarus and the rich man had a body somewhere, so they are in a different situation than Jesus. Jesus' body was not in the tomb.
I agree. The body of Lazarus and the rich man were still in a tombs that were placed in after death. Rotting.

You are exactly correct in regards to the resurrection of Christ, which all believers will also partake in. However, though the bodies of Lazarus and the rich man were decaying in their tombs, their spirits were very conscious and aware in Sheol/Hades, as the context reveals:

"One day the beggar died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. And the rich man also died and was buried."

So, in the verse above, both Lazarus and the rich man are both said to have died and then we read the following:

"In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham from afar, with Lazarus by his side."

Both the bodies of Lazarus and the rich man were said to have died and yet their spirits are there in Sheol/Hades. It states that the rich man was in torment and that he could see Lazarus at Abraham's side. One must be conscious and aware in order to experience torment. And since the body of the rich man died, then it must be referring to his spirit in Hades. This would do away with the idea of soul-sleep. It is only the body that sleeps in the dust of the earth. People distort the truth contained within this context when they interpret the rich man and Lazarus as being a parable.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Regarding the death of the righteous, sleep always refers to the body and not the spirit

Ahwatukee,

Kind regards.

I was not referring to the maid that Jesus raised. I was referring to the woman (a disciple) that Peter brought back to life again in Acts 9:39-43. This raising from the dead happened after the Lord’s resurrection. If what many teach is true, regarding a believer who dies going to be immediately with the Lord, then we would have to conclude that Peter brought Tabitha down from heaven to this present evil world again.

That’s somewhat strange, would you agree?