Lazarus sleeps

Are you talking about Lazarus and the rich man?

==I am talking about all the Scriptural points I raised. However I will accept this is a good start (finally).
_______________________________
You said:
According to the story, The rich man died -slept [eyes closed] -- Luke 16:22.

==Right, his body slept. However as we see the man himself was in a conscious state in torment (vs23). The man was not asleep though his body was.
_______________________________
You said:
The next time we read about the rich man, his eyes are OPEN - "he lift up his eyes" (Lk 16:33) - in his grave [hell, hades].

(And many of them that sleep in the dust of the Earth shall AWAKE [eyes open] - Daniel 12:2.)

The rich man is resurrected and sees Abraham and Lazarus

==That is not Scriptural. Jesus is not talking about future events (ie..the resurrection) in Luke 16. There is no mention of it. In fact there are two reasons we know that this is a past event (that it was past when Jesus spoke these words).

1. Jesus uses the past tense. These events had already happened when Jesus spoke of them.

2. The rich man is aware that his brothers are still alive and active on earth (vs27-31) and going on with their daily lives as they were when he was alive. That would not be happening if it were resurrection day (Jn 5:25-29). Since the resurrection of the dead had not occured when Jesus spoke these words, and it is still future even today, then this passage is not speaking of resurrected bodies. It is speaking of the condition of the man after his death (but before the resurrection). This man is in torment before the resurrection of the dead, he is in torment moments after his death.

You can't force thousands of years between Luke 16:22 and 16:23. It just does not work.

Sorry. Your explanation is unScriptural, without textual support, and therefore fails.

Now maybe you can address the other Scriptures and points I raised. Maybe this time you can respond to them and not just present your theory?

Martin.

 

You said:
Notice, Paul did not say where he would go or when he would be with Christ.

There is not one word mentioning heaven here, nor is there one word saying that he would be with Christ immediately.

==If you had responded to my post you would not have made the mistake you just made.

Your position is unlogical and without textual support. Paul is saying (Phil 1:21-24) that he is caught between two options (both good). On the one side he wishes to stay on "in the flesh" and continue his ministry. On the other he wishes to depart and be with Christ which "very much better". Paul saw no gap, he saw it as an either or option. He would either go to Christ (at that time) or stay on in the flesh. Paul believed, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, that when he was absent from his flesh (body) he would be present with the Lord (2Cor 5:8).

Why would Paul say he was caught between two options if he knew it could be thousands of years before he would actually be with Christ? Your position just does not fit the Scriptural text.

_________________________
You said:
In 2Timothy 4:6-8 Paul wrote: "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." Paul explains what he meant by being with Christ. He does not receive his reward immediately at death.

==That is not the point. This is not about reward "immediately at death". Paul believed that when believers left their flesh (their bodies), when they departed, they would be present with the Lord (2Cor 5:8, Phil 1:21-24). Rewards may and do come later but, as Jesus points out in Luke 16, when a believer's body falls asleep they are taken to paradise at that moment. Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.


This really shows the illogical (and unBiblical) nature of your position. This is not about the future resurrection !!! How can there be absence from the body after the resurrection??
There cannot be, why not? Because at that time the bodies will be raised and we will be present in our bodies again. At that time there will be no more absence from the body (for the body will be raised). This is about the state of being absent from the body.


The state of being absent from the body is death (Jms 2:26). Where are those who are absent from the body? If they are believers they are present with the Lord.

Martin.

 

The rich man "lift up his EYES... and SEES Abraham. . ."
even as Jesus warned the Pharisees, "You shall SEE Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom, and you yourselves cast out" ( Luke 13:28). </font>[/QUOTE]==You are ignoring my argument, the context of Scripture, and about everything else. Now how about a real reply to my post instead of this chop job.

I will repeat my whole reply. How about a response to my argument and the points I have raised from the Scriptures. You can't make Luke 16 speak of the resurrection of the dead without doing violance to the text!

Jesus is not talking about future events (ie..the resurrection) in Luke 16. There is no mention of it. In fact there are two reasons we know that this is a past event (that it was past when Jesus spoke these words).

1. Jesus uses the past tense. These events had already happened when Jesus spoke of them.

2. The rich man is aware that his brothers are still alive and active on earth (vs27-31) and going on with their daily lives as they were when he was alive. That would not be happening if it were resurrection day (Jn 5:25-29). Since the resurrection of the dead had not occured when Jesus spoke these words, and it is still future even today, then this passage is not speaking of resurrected bodies. It is speaking of the condition of the man after his death (but before the resurrection). This man is in torment before the resurrection of the dead, he is in torment moments after his death.

You can't force thousands of years between Luke 16:22 and 16:23. It just does not work.


Martin.

 

To die is gain! In death, there is no knowledge of passing time (Eccl. 9: 5,6,10; Ps. 146: 4). THE NEXT MOMENT IS THE RESURRECTION! </font>[/QUOTE]==Again. Your complete failure to deal with the argument. Are you unable to discuss this properly? Or just unwilling. You have not replied to the points I have raised from Scripture. You can't take a passage from Ecclesiastes out of context, ignore/twist the words of Jesus, and claim to have a real position. Ecclesiastes 9:5 speaks of the body and not life after death (9:2). You must consider carefully the context of Scripture.

Psalm 146:4 is talking about the fate of man and not life after death. Notice that this very verse states that at death the spirit of the man "departs". This verse does not say where it goes but the New Testament tells us. Either paradise or torment (Lk 16). The man's thoughts/plans perish or come to an end. Man's life on earth is temporary and we should not trust in mortal man, that is the point of Pslam 146. You need to consider context more carefully.

Martin.

 

"For I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.” ---Phillipians 1:23-24 NAS / 2Timothy 4:6-8.


Notice, Paul did not say where he would go or when he would be with Christ.

There is not one word mentioning heaven here, nor is there one word saying that he would be with Christ immediately.


In 2Timothy 4:6-8 Paul wrote:

Paul explains what he meant by being with Christ. He does not receive his reward immediately at death. But there is laid up a crown of righteousness which the Lord shall give him at that day. What day? At Christ's appearing----His second coming.


In Isaiah 40:10 we notice this same day mentioned: "Behold, the Lord God will come….behold, his reward is with him…." See also Revelation 22: 12.


To die is gain! In death, there is no knowledge of passing time (Eccl. 9: 5,6,10; Ps. 146: 4). THE NEXT MOMENT IS THE RESURRECTION! </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, brother.

 

I said:
The rich man is aware that his brothers are still alive and active on earth (vs27-31) and going on with their daily lives as they were when he was alive. That would not be happening if it were resurrection day (Jn 5:25-29).Why not?

You said:
In death,There is no knowledge of passing time. To the rich man, his brothers were still living at home----proof that in death we are ignorant of passing time---sleeping.

==That is not what the text says! You are twisting Scripture to support your view. Not once does Jesus or Abraham imply or suggest that this man's brothers were not still living. In fact the very opposite is true!

In Luke 16:29 the rich man is told, by Abraham, that his brothers "have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them". In other words Abraham is saying that the rich man's brothers still have a chance of avoiding torment. This would not be so if resurrection day had already arrived.

In Luke 16:31 Abraham again shows that the brothers are still alive, and in fact that the brothers have not seen someone raised from the dead (putting it before Jesus) and would not be convinced even if they did. Clearly showing that they were still alive.

No place does Jesus suggest that Abraham was wrong, and no place does Abraham suggest that this man's brothers were already dead. Your argument is just plain unScriptural.
___________________________________

You said:
The rich man now realizes that Abraham has been DEAD. He realizes he, the rich man, has also been dead for an indeterminate number of years. Suddenly, he is aware that he has been completely OBLIVIOUS to the passage of time; in his own mind, his brothers, living in his father's house, are still there.

==Where in the text does it say that? Where does it say that this man suddenly realizes that Abraham has been dead along time? And if that is the case, why does Abraham seem to be unaware of the fact that this man's brothers are really dead? See the points I just made.


Your whole position is unScriptural because it is not based on the plain meaning of the text. You are reading all sorts of ideas and theories into the text.
__________________________

You said:
In his vision of the Kingdom of God, he hears Abraham finally say, ". . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE DEAD"! (verse 31).

==What vision? There is no vision here. The text says that the rich man was in torment and saw Lazarus and Abraham. There is no vision here. Stop reading into the text.
_____________________________

You said:
We are dealing with a RESURRECTION here.

The rich man has been RESURRECTED. Abraham has been resurrected.

==I have already refuted this.

____________________________________


Martin.

 

==What?

That is no reply!

I await your point by point, in context, full reply to what I have said..

 

O, and btw, 1Cor 15 is talking about the resurrection and not the intermediate state. Once again you are taking Scriptures out of context, and focusing on Scriptures that are dealing with different subjects.

Martin

 

Jesus is telling this story to His disciples.

Would you say Jesus is making up the dialog as He goes?

Jesus is just making up a story as He goes.

==There is nothing in the text to suggest such a thing, first off. Secondly Jesus presents the account as an actual historical event, not a parable (see my post on this in this thread). Thirdly even if this were a parable (fictional account) it still would disprove your theory. Why? Because Jesus has these three conscious and active after death and before the resurrection of the dead. So unless you are accusing the Lord Himself of misleading people (and I doubt you are) Luke 16 represents a very serious problem for your theory.

The Bible tells us that all Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching (2Tim 3:16-17). That includes Luke 16.

Martin.

 

Wopik,

Why are you so bent against the idea that man's soul/spirit can survive apart from the flesh? That alone doesn't render it immortal.

It seems you are bending and twisting scripture to arrive at a pre-conceived conclusion. Just take the scriptures for what they are. Surely Christ would not have concocted a story full of heretical ideas of the afterlife just to make His point. That would be un-Godly and therefore un-Christlike.

Randy

 

Martin,

Although I agree with your arguments on this subject, I'm interested to know why you think the idea of soul sleep is so dangerous (other than the obvious fact that it runs counter to plain scripture). What do you think are the theological implications for one who holds to this (false) doctrine?

Randy

 

Wopik,

Let me pose the same question to you: What do you think is so dangerous about believing that one's soul/spirit can survive apart from the flesh?

Randy

 

Wopik,
Hello again my friend, I am still waiting on your response to my question from months ago...i.e. Would you please advise us where you attend worship service? I have asked until I am blue in the face and I just can't seem to get a response from you on this. Remember now, I advised you months ago where I attend, I was happy to say and make my "yea, yea and nay, nay". I don't understand the obvious calousnous to my request. Do you have something to hide?
Thanks -----Bart

 

Randy,

That is a good question.

You said:
I'm interested to know why you think the idea of soul sleep is so dangerous (other than the obvious fact that it runs counter to plain scripture).

==From a theological/Biblical point of view that would be my main concern. Soul sleep is a unBiblical teaching and therefore those who believe it are believing (and even spreading) false doctrine (which is always spiritual poison). The concern is that these people are rejecting the teachings of Scripture (and the very clear testimony of our Lord Himself).
____________________________________________

You said:
What do you think are the theological implications for one who holds to this (false) doctrine?

==I think they are confused and end up pushing their confusion onto Scripture. There is a concept known as "exegesis". Exegesis is done when a reader (of the Scripture) derives his/her understanding from the text itself. That is we goto the Bible and accept its plain meaning. That is perfectly sound. However there is another concept known as "eisegesis". Eisegesis is when a person reads their doctrinal/philisophical views into the text. The latter is what those who believe soul sleep are doing. They are taking their idea and pushing it (forcing it) into Luke 16 (for example). In so doing they are doing violence to the Scriptures because Luke 16 plainly contradicts their basic ideas.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

Martin,

I agree that it is dangerous for any of us to read into scripture our beleifs & views rather than to be taught by the scripture. But I think that we all practice that to one degree or another, simply because we are often insensitive to the Holy Spirit when we read.

What I am wondering is what are the implications to one's faith if they hold to this view of the afterlife. For example, if someone doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, the danger is that they won't truly know Christ and be saved. If someone belives in "soul sleep" how is that detrimental to their faith assuming they have saving faith in Christ?

Is this a disputable matter that is not worth passing judgement about?