Series of Related Questions

[Realist1981]

I've decided to not go with a Poll Thread. Just chime in and tell me is this what you believe.

It is understood that the body stays in the grave until ressurection (whether it is the first ressurection or 2nd ressurection).

#1 Do you believe that the soul only exists when your spirit indwells the body (cellestial or Flesh body)?
#2 Is the spirit of man synominous to that of the Spirit of Life?
#3 Where does your spirit go after death? If you answered yes to #2 then (Ecclesiastes 11:5) probably sums up your answer here.
#4 When the ressurection happens is our spirit rejoined to our earthly body or a Cellestial Body?
#5 Do we live after our death before the ressurection in a place of paradise or Torment?
#6 Isn't the Lazuras story a parable and not an actual story?

Thank you for your time

[markedward]

1. Scripture doesn't provide a systematic definition of what the 'soul' is. For example, in Genesis 2, the text says that God made man a 'living soul'. People see this as a evidence for humanity being unique from animals. Even though just a few verses later the same Hebrew word for 'living soul' is used of animals. Sometimes Scripture speaks of the 'spirit' and the 'soul' as synonyms. Sometimes 'soul' is used as a synonym for 'self'. If I had to stick with a particular definition of 'soul', it would be that body of dust plus spirit of life equals a living soul. So, to the original question, yes: the 'soul' is only existent while the spirit of life is in the body of dust. When the body returns to dust, and the spirit returns to God, the 'soul' dies.

2. Effectively, yes. In each Hebrew and Greek, the word for 'spirit' is the same as the word for 'breath'. (Hence why, when God breathes into Adam, Adam receives a spirit.) To say that the 'spirit of life' is in man means that the 'breath of life' is in man. That makes it man's own spirit/breath.

3. The spirit/breath returns to the God who gave it.

4. The question is a bit tricky to answer straight, since it doesn't define 'earthly body' or 'celestial body', and either of these can be taken many ways. Paul says that the present body is 'earthly', while the resurrection body is 'heavenly'. But he isn't talking about what the body is made of, or where it exists, he is talking about how it lives: for the self (the Greek word is usually translated as 'natural', but I think soulish/selfish captures the meaning better) or for God (spiritually).

5. To clarify: Prior to the coming of Christ, all men died. Death is death; it is the end. After the coming of Christ, but before the general resurrection, all who have faith in God were raised to life with Christ, and raised up to the heavenly places. My belief is that before Jesus, all men died and that was it; after Jesus, all of the faithful were raised to life in Jesus.

6. It is strictly a parable. Jesus is not teaching about the nature of hell, and he is definitely not teaching about eternal conscious torment. The parable is an illustration that is in the context of the previous four parables: Jesus is teaching about salvation for the outcasts and condemnation for the poor stewards of God's message: the religious leadership to whom he was speaking.

[LookingUp]

1. Scripture doesn't provide a systematic definition of what the 'soul' is. For example, in Genesis 2, the text says that God made man a 'living soul'. People see this as a evidence for humanity being unique from animals. Even though just a few verses later the same Hebrew word for 'living soul' is used of animals. Sometimes Scripture speaks of the 'spirit' and the 'soul' as synonyms. Sometimes 'soul' is used as a synonym for 'self'. If I had to stick with a particular definition of 'soul', it would be that body of dust plus spirit of life equals a living soul. So, to the original question, yes: the 'soul' is only existent while the spirit of life is in the body of dust. When the body returns to dust, and the spirit returns to God, the 'soul' dies.

2. Effectively, yes. In each Hebrew and Greek, the word for 'spirit' is the same as the word for 'breath'. (Hence why, when God breathes into Adam, Adam receives a spirit.) To say that the 'spirit of life' is in man means that the 'breath of life' is in man. That makes it man's own spirit/breath.

3. The spirit/breath returns to the God who gave it.

4. The question is a bit tricky to answer straight, since it doesn't define 'earthly body' or 'celestial body', and either of these can be taken many ways. Paul says that the present body is 'earthly', while the resurrection body is 'heavenly'. But he isn't talking about what the body is made of, or where it exists, he is talking about how it lives: for the self (the Greek word is usually translated as 'natural', but I think soulish/selfish captures the meaning better) or for God (spiritually).

5. To clarify: Prior to the coming of Christ, all men died. Death is death; it is the end. After the coming of Christ, but before the general resurrection, all who have faith in God were raised to life with Christ, and raised up to the heavenly places. My belief is that before Jesus, all men died and that was it; after Jesus, all of the faithful were raised to life in Jesus.

6. It is strictly a parable. Jesus is not teaching about the nature of hell, and he is definitely not teaching about eternal conscious torment. The parable is an illustration that is in the context of the previous four parables: Jesus is teaching about salvation for the outcasts and condemnation for the poor stewards of God's message: the religious leadership to whom he was speaking.

If the OT saints were "dead and that was it," were the images of the OT saints standing with Jesus at his transfiguration fakes?

Also, what do you make of Samuel who was brought back to speak to Saul?

[markedward]

If the OT saints were "dead and that was it," were the images of the OT saints standing with Jesus at his transformation fakes?

Jesus' transfiguration was a vision. I believe the images of Moses and Elijah were a part of that vision, used for their traditional first-century representation: Moses represented the Law, and Elijah represented the Prophets. The vision was a sign to the Apostles that the Law and the Prophets testified to who Jesus is and what he would do.

Also, what do you make of Samuel who was brought back to speak to Saul?

Two ideas vie for my attention. I haven't really settled on one, but either of them seem fine to me. One: Samuel was raised up. He was dead (not living beyond his body), and then was temporarily raised in some way, in which case it was an act that God permitted. Or, two: the medium of Endor being a practitioner of summoning 'familiar spirits', an act forbidden by the Law, perhaps she faked the scenario in some way (the Septuagint calls her a 'ventriloquist', which originally was not a type of entertainment, but a religious act performed in exactly such situations as the one Saul was in). This latter interpretation is one that many Christians hold to anyway, regardless of their perspective on the nature of death.

[LookingUp]

Jesus' transfiguration was a vision. I believe the images of Moses and Elijah were a part of that vision, used for their traditional first-century representation: Moses represented the Law, and Elijah represented the Prophets. The vision was a sign to the Apostles that the Law and the Prophets testified to who Jesus is and what he would do.


Two ideas vie for my attention. I haven't really settled on one, but either of them seem fine to me. One: Samuel was raised up. He was dead (not living beyond his body), and then was temporarily raised in some way, in which case it was an act that God permitted. Or, two: the medium of Endor being a practitioner of summoning 'familiar spirits', an act forbidden by the Law, perhaps she faked the scenario in some way (the Septuagint calls her a 'ventriloquist', which originally was not a type of entertainment, but a religious act performed in exactly such situations as the one Saul was in). This latter interpretation is one that many Christians hold to anyway, regardless of their perspective on the nature of death.

Thank you! I have been really enjoying your posts! I'm reading the one on leviathan now. What are your resources for your research? I've taken the "literal" approach in teaching Scripture to my kids. That's what I was taught. But what resources could I use that may help them see other ways of reading Scripture other than strictly literal all the time?

[markedward]

A great introductory book is How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. In this book they go through the basic sections of the Bible according to genre: epistles, historical narrative (Samuel, Kings), gospels, parables (parts of the gospels and other books), the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, wisdom (e.g. Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, etc.), and the Revelation. 'Literal', I think, is a very limited approach to understanding Scripture. The ancient writers simply didn't think of everything in 'literal' terms (and neither do we). We have to understand the Scriptures in the way the books were originally understood by the people God first gave them to, even if that means understanding certain parts of Scripture in 'non-literal' ways.

Generally, I tend to research on a topical basis.

For example, to study the relationship between God and Jesus, I found several books on the issue: When Jesus Became God, How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, Jesus - God and Man, God Crucified (graciously given to me by Matthehitmanhart), Making Sense of Who God Is. Some other books about Intertestamental literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls helped as well (since they present how Jews before and contemporary to Christians viewed God, semi-divine mediators figures, and the messiah), along with papers written by different scholars on the subject (N.T. Wright had some great insights).

[LookingUp]

A great introductory book is How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. In this book they go through the basic sections of the Bible according to genre: epistles, historical narrative (Samuel, Kings), gospels, parables (parts of the gospels and other books), the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, wisdom (e.g. Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, etc.), and the Revelation. 'Literal', I think, is a very limited approach to understanding Scripture. The ancient writers simply didn't think of everything in 'literal' terms (and neither do we). We have to understand the Scriptures in the way the books were originally understood by the people God first gave them to, even if that means understanding certain parts of Scripture in 'non-literal' ways.

Generally, I tend to research on a topical basis.

For example, to study the relationship between God and Jesus, I found several books on the issue: When Jesus Became God, How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, Jesus - God and Man, God Crucified (graciously given to me by Matthehitmanhart), Making Sense of Who God Is. Some other books about Intertestamental literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls helped as well (since they present how Jews before and contemporary to Christians viewed God, semi-divine mediators figures, and the messiah), along with papers written by different scholars on the subject (N.T. Wright had some great insights).

Thanks. I'll look into those books.