"Soul Sleep?"Part 1

NewRef - thank you for looking into the Matt 22 issue.

However, if you notice the quote from me (that you posted) recommends that you take the pieces I laid out in the chapter in detail and "show" your own answers to the points raised - in detail.

You really needed to insert my quotes and respond to them. If you had - you would have seen that I already posted the Acts 23 reference where clearly the Sadducees DID publically debate and publically denie the resurrection AND the fact of Angels AND the fact of man having a spirit.

SINCE they denied that man had a spirit - they saw no possibility of "the living dead" or life after death.

It was never their OWN position that God did NOT speak to Moses in Exodus 3. We have NO indication in all of the NT that the Sadducees denied that God spoke to Moses.

I.E. They FULLY agree with Christ here - God DID say this to Moses.

(And from the Pharisees response, it is clear that the Pharisees had not yet thought to use this in their OWN debates with the Sadducees on this subject.)

Here again - if you had followed my advice and included my quotes and responded to them - you would see that I Already observed that such an approach above is flawed on TWO counts.

#1. That is NOT the view of the Sadducees regarding mankind - since in their view mankind has NO spirit.

#2. That solution above - (IF Christ could have made a case FOR IT) negates the NEED for a future resurrection to MAKE the statement true.

As I already noted in my post - such an approach destroys the "proof" of the resurrection by arguing that WITHOUT the resurrection - the statement that God is NOT the God of the DEAD is solved for Abraham at the time God speaks to Moses - by using ANOTHER fact about the dead NOT the fact of the resurrection.

So "again" I ask that you address the points raised - and "show" how the argument given by Christ was an air tight - iron clad case requiring the resurrection as the only SOLUTION for the puzzle.

So far, you have only shown that if Your ideas had also been accepted by the Sadducees then the resurrection that Christ is explicitly arguing FOR is in fact NOT the only solution.

In addition you have not shown that the Sadducees (who did NOT accept that mankind has a spirit) would ever have accepted your alternate non-resurrection solution, nor that anything Christ is arguing would get them to the point of believing in the "living dead" INSTEAD of believing in the "future resurrection" as the "solution".

In Christ,

Bob

 

3AM, Please clear something up for me. If Christ took what was coming to us literally, and if that is a COMPLETE EVERLASTING death, why did He not have to stay dead as your doctrine seems to imply? </font>[/QUOTE]The reason He is able to save us is for the simple fact that He OVERCAME death. REAL death. We are not promised 'everlasting' death. The death that we are promised is eternal. Meaning that we will not be resurrected. If we die in Christ, we sleep awaiting resurrection to eternal life, if we die in our sins we will sleep awaiting resurrection to judgment and eventual 'second' death, which will be eternal. A death that we will NOT wake from.

Let's flip that coin. If everlasting punishing, involving torture in flames for all the ages of eternity is the punishment for sin, then how could Christ have paid the cost, seeing as how He spent ZERO time in any kind of firey punishment?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

I seem to have it?

I don't believe that Jesus is God. This is one of the reasons I don't believe that He is God. God CANNOT die. Jesus died.

If Jesus DID NOT die, then we don't have a Savior, nor was He the fulfillment of the Messiah.

Then we have a REAL problem.

The false doctrine which places Christ as equal to The Most High God makes is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to die, therefore making it impossible for Him to save.

We have a problem.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

I seem to have it?

I don't believe that Jesus is God. This is one of the reasons I don't believe that He is God. God CANNOT die. Jesus died.

If Jesus DID NOT die, then we don't have a Savior, nor was He the fulfillment of the Messiah.

Then we have a REAL problem.

The false doctrine which places Christ as equal to The Most High God makes is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to die, therefore making it impossible for Him to save.

We have a problem.

God Bless,
Kelly </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus Christ is the Lord God.In Genesis it states that God created the heavens and the earth.In John and Colossians Chapters 1 it makes it CLEAR that Jesus is the Creator of all things.
The [I AM] called to Moses from the burning bush and Moses called Him God.Jesus makes it clear in John chapter 8 that He is the [I AM].Isaiah 9:6 declares that Jesus is God.
Apostle Paul,being a bloodline Jew,makes a profound statement in Philippians 2:6

Another man cannot die for my sins or yours.Only God in a man form could provide the blood sacrifice required for the redemption of sins.Jesus' spirit did not die,just His flesh body perished.

Jesus,the God man, made many literal apperances to His people in the Old Testament and they bowed down and worshipped Him.[Joshua 5:13-15]God is a spirit and we cannot see a spirit.
IF a person does not see JESUS as GOD,then they do not see God,for He is invisible.

 

This is the same point that I made in my Matt 22 post. I showed that the Sadducees WOULD agree with the Exodus 3 statement of God to Moses "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".

AND I showed that the Sadducees WOULD agree with Christ that "God is NOT the God of the Dead but of the living" SINCE they believed in NO resurrection, NO spirit and NO Angel (Acts 23 points this out for us).

My point - as already stated in my first post on this point is that they WOULD agree.

My point was also that combining these two Agreed-upon-points was forcing them into a puzzle. A problem for which ONLY the future resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would provide the "solution".

You have argued that there is ANOTHER solution. One that would NOT require their resurrection. You argue that even WITHOUT the resurrection these TWO central debate points by Christ are true using ANOTHER solution that amounts to the living dead (immortal souls that CONTINUE to be in fellowship with God WHILE the person is dead) - and nothing then requires the resurrection to MAKE the two preface points of Christ true. EVEN when combined and EVEN for the Sadducees you argue that using this model of life IN death - there is no NEED of the resurrection to solve the puzzle.

I have shown repeatedly that by defusing Christ's argument - and by your own admission your view results in NO problem to be SOLVED by a future resurrection in the TWO statements Christ makes - his entire argument FOR the resurrection is made "void" using your view.

But we know from the text of Matt 22 that his argument was SO air-tight, so iron-clad, so innescapable to his hostile debate opponents THAT EVEN the Pharisees (who had been debating this VERY point with them for years) saw the brilliance in Christ's argument and ALL the people saw that He had put them "to silence" in his brilliant "PROOF" of the future resurrection.

(As I already pointed out in my post).

So - if you would not continue to ignore this detail - would you be so kind as to fully respond to the point I have made repeatedly. SHOW how your view SUPPORTS and defines the iron-clad brilliant argument Christ makes FOR the future resurrection as the only SOLUTION to the puzzle he has presented to the Sadducees?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Kelly,

While the subject of the deity of Christ has nothing to do with thread or most of the other ones that these people seem to want to bring this same subject up for - I would offer this.

Even in your view - that Christ is not God - we have these facts.

#1. He did exist before the virgin birth - His incarnation on earth.

#2. In His original form - He was higher than all the angels AND He was not a human.

#3. He came to Earth fully human and also fully whatever you are saying he was before His incarnation - but devoid of the outward glory and power of that ontological form.

#4. When He died on earth - His humanity died and you would argue that so also did that ontological essence of whatever He was prior to becoming Human.

The other argument would be that Humanity died but that Divinity simply continued to be held in restraint.

Before dying He "paid our debt of suffering the 2nd death" in His OWN suffering prior to dying - even in your view of the nature of Christ.

However - neither of those two options for point 4 require that His humanity did not die or that the suffering He experienced prior to physical death be anything less than the complete suffering for all the sins of all humanity. Once that suffering ended - (at His death) the suffeing was "over" - using either ONE of those options for point 4.

This means "the death" of Christ can not be made as "the argument for the non-Divinity of Christ". Neither can the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ be shown to "require that something that is not God pay the debt of suffering for sins of the entire world" because that "suffering" happened in the hours preceeding His death - even in your view.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know this thread has been dead for a few days, but I came upon it when looking for something, and I just HAVE to know something.

BobRyan,

Are you really a Seventh Day Adventist, or are you only here on false pretenses to make the SDA's look bad?

This is the 3rd time I have read a post of yours and wondered if we belong to the same church!

It is the OFFICIAL Position of the SDA Church that Christ DIED, slept in the GRAVE on the Sabbath, and ROSE the third day.

THAT is not what you are putting forth!

Are you really SDA?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

Given some of the views of what is called the Historical group today - I can see where you might get that.

But I can assure you not only is this the view of today's SDA church - it was also the view of Ellen White. (Saying that not as "proof" that this view is right - simply that it goes back to the foundation).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Could you please provide references for these statements you have made? From official SDA sites, or EGW's writings.

Keeping in mind that I did not associate myself with the Historic SDA until recently, and my doctrinal views have only changed in regards to the trinity.

What you have set forth is not part of that.

Please show that the SDA agrees with your position.

Thanks,
Kelly

 

Specifically - Christs words "I have power to lay My Life down and I have power to take it up again"?

Bob

 

Bob,

THIS PART:

Are you asserting that this is the SDA Position?

Do you have references of an SDA source that can prove that this is official SDA doctrine?

God Bless,
Kelly