Matt 10:28 does God really "destroy BOTH" Body AND soul in fiery hell??

[Andre]

The whole notion that references to "sleep" after death refer to the body only and not the whole person is highly suspect. It seems rather evident that the distinguishing characteristic of sleep is lack of consciousness. In the dualistic "body vs soul/spirit" conceptualization, it is the soul / spirit that is the seat of all conciousness (how could it be otherwise?). So it seems rather difficult to argue that the statement "Believer Fred sleeps after death" means that Fred's body sleeps while his soul / spirit is in full flower of conscious activity in the presence of God.

 

[DHK]

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And thus Bob and Andre have no answer but to assume that John was perhaps on LSD and was hallucinating when he saw the redeemed saints in heaven praising God, because they insist that at this time in history they were dead and unconscious.

 

[Andre]

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And thus Bob and Andre have no answer but to assume that John was perhaps on LSD and was hallucinating when he saw the redeemed saints in heaven praising God, because they insist that at this time in history they were dead and unconscious.

And of course DHK is expecting the reader to forget that this is a vision of the future.

 

[DHK]

And of course DHK is expecting the reader to forget that this is a vision of the future.

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures.

Here is the outline of the book:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I. The things which thou has seen.
John just saw Christ. He describes him in chapter one.

II. The things which are. Chapters 2-5
Chapters 2 and 3 describes the 7 churches present at that time and their condition.
Chapters 4 and 5 was a present heavenly scene at that time that John saw in heaven.

III. From chapter 6 to the end of the book are the things which should be thereafter. They are future. Chapter 5 was not a future event.

If you study the Book of Revelation this is what you will find. Chapter five was not a future event.
The word "saw" is in the past; not the future.

 

[Andre]

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures.

Here is the outline of the book:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I. The things which thou has seen.
John just saw Christ. He describes him in chapter one.

II. The things which are. Chapters 2-5
Chapters 2 and 3 describes the 7 churches present at that time and their condition.
Chapters 4 and 5 was a present heavenly scene at that time that John saw in heaven.

III. From chapter 6 to the end of the book are the things which should be thereafter. They are future. Chapter 5 was not a future event.

If you study the Book of Revelation this is what you will find. Chapter five was not a future event.
The word "saw" is in the past; not the future.

I do not think that your argument is correct. Let's say that I agree with you about chapters 2 and 3. Here is the beginning of chapter 4:

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this. At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it....

So chapters 4 and 5 are about events that take place after the events in chapters 2 and 3. So your assertion that chapters 4 and 5 are a "present" (present from John's perspective) description of heaven cannot be reconciled with your assertion that chapters 2 are about the state of the churches at the time that John wrote, unless they occur "right after one another" - and that seems unlikely. One comes after the other, so they both cannot really be "present time" from John's perspective.

This does not prove that the scene in Heaven in chapter 5 has not already taken place (there may be other arguments to deal with that). For this reason, I will back off my claim that Rev 5 is about our future. I believe that it is. But I have no grounds for such claim until I study further.

Of course, you are in the same boat: You have not provided any reason for the reader to believe that the events from Rev 5 have already taken place. Do you have any specific evidence to support your claim that the events in chapter were a "present time to John" view into Heaven?

And, of course, the tense of the word "saw" does not support your position. If I have a vision about the future, I will quite naturally say "I saw the Leafs winning the 2011 Stanley Cup". The fact that the word "saw" is in the past tense does not establish that the content of the vision of John has already happened.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And thus Bob and Andre have no answer but to assume that John was perhaps on LSD and was hallucinating when he saw the redeemed saints in heaven praising God, because they insist that at this time in history they were dead and unconscious.

While I agree with your take on this subject, in all fairness, this passage is in a prophetic sense, which means that even if it's a future event, it can be spoken of in past tense, and telling the prophecy can be in the present tense in relation to othe subjects.

IOW, "I saw (past) this take place, and when it takes place, they are singing (present)."

 

[DHK]

While I agree with your take on this subject, in all fairness, this passage is in a prophetic sense, which means that even if it's a future event, it can be spoken of in past tense, and telling the prophecy can be in the present tense in relation to othe subjects.

IOW, "I saw (past) this take place, and when it takes place, they are singing (present)."

Look at the context once more:

Here is the outline of the book:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Now we come to chapter five, and examine the overall context:

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
--John is writing those things which he saw in 98 A.D., at the time that he wrote this epistle. These are the things that are, according to 1:19, at the time of the writing of John. What did he see?

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Of course he saw many other things as well. But he saw redeemed saints singing and praising God. They were out of every nation. They were of every type of background. They were the saved--the dead in Christ, those that Paul refers to in 1Thes.4:16. The dead in Christ shall rise first.
Only the resurrection had not taken place yet. The Lord gave John eyes to see the spirits of them that were in heaven. He was able to see the angels as well--spirit being without bodies. He was able to look upon God without dying, something man cannot do. The resurrection had not taken place. He was not seeing resurrected bodies. He was seeing those who had been redeemed that had died before him.
Chapter six starts with the events that are future in what John will see.

 

[DHK]

I do not think that your argument is correct. Let's say that I agree with you about chapters 2 and 3. Here is the beginning of chapter 4:

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this. At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it....

So chapters 4 and 5 are about events that take place after the events in chapters 2 and 3. So your assertion that chapters 4 and 5 are a "present" (present from John's perspective) description of heaven cannot be reconciled with your assertion that chapters 2 are about the state of the churches at the time that John wrote, unless they occur "right after one another" - and that seems unlikely. One comes after the other, so they both cannot really be "present time" from John's perspective.

No, that is not correct. The churches were on earth. The events in chapters 4 and 5 run concurrently with what is happening in the churches, only those events are in heaven. What is happening in heaven is happening on earth at the same time.

This does not rove that the scene in Heaven in chapter 5 has not already taken place (there may be other arguments to deal with that). For this reason, I will back off my claim that Rev 5 is about our future. I believe that it is. But I have no grounds for such claim until I study further.

It is very simple:
I was means: I was.
They sang means: They sang.
I beheld means: I beheld.
They said means: They said.

If you can't understand those very simple statements, all made in the past tense, then please go back to grammar school.

 

[Andre]

DHK, you are just claiming that, in Rev 5, he saw "things that are, according to 1:19, at the time of the writing of John". You have given the reader no reason whatsoever to believe this statement. Nothing you have posted rules out a vision of the future state of affairs in Heaven. You cite Rev 1:19, but this does not support your case: Here it is:

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.

You obviously believe that the stuff in Rev 5 does not fall into the "things which shall be hereafter" category. What is your justification? It cannot be the past tense of "I saw" since even visions of the future will be reported as being in the past - "I saw the Leafs win the Stanley Cup in 2011".

 

[Andre]

It is very simple:
I was means: I was.
They sang means: They sang.
I beheld means: I beheld.
They said means: They said.

If you can't understand those very simple statements, all made in the past tense, then please go back to grammar school.

You are simply and obviously mistaken. Even posters who share your general view disagree with you on this.

If you were to establish that the content of Rev 5 is not a vision of the future but instead a snapshot view into the state of affairs in Heaven at the time of John, then you would have a point.

But you have not done this. And no person with a lick of sense would argue that because John says "I beheld X" this means that X has necessarily already happened, if the possibility of a vision of the future has not been ruled out.

 

[DHK]

You are simply and obviously mistaken. Even posters who share your general view disagree with you on this.

If you were to establish that the content of Rev 5 is not a vision of the future but instead a snapshot view into the state of affairs in Heaven at the time of John, then you would have a point.

How about you establishing the evidence that it is a vision of the future. There is nothing to indicate that this a vision of the future. Nothing. It falls within the parameters of the outline given in 1:19. All the verbs used are in the past tense, contrasted to those in chapter six, where the angels tell John repeatedly: "Come and see," which indicates future. You give the evidence that chapter five is a future event.

 

[BobRyan]

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures.

Here is the outline of the book:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I. The things which thou has seen.
John just saw Christ. He describes him in chapter one.

II. The things which are. Chapters 2-5
Chapters 2 and 3 describes the 7 churches present at that time and their condition.
Chapters 4 and 5 was a present heavenly scene at that time that John saw in heaven.

III. From chapter 6 to the end of the book are the things which should be thereafter. They are future. Chapter 5 was not a future event.

My My - see how far astray this line of reason has taken us from the OP.

#1. the wooden rule you are using here falls flat as we see in Rev 12 where we have the birth of Christ,

I agree that most of Revelation is in JOHN's future - but a wooden rule that all chapters after Chapter 6 can only reference future events - does not work.

Now back to our topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And thus Bob and Andre have no answer but to assume that John was perhaps on LSD and was hallucinating when he saw the redeemed saints in heaven praising God, because they insist that at this time in history they were dead and unconscious.

Ahhh - HERE we have the entry point for this little rabbit trail.

The text in Rev 5 shows us NO SAINTS AT ALL in heaven!!

Notice that those redeemed by Christ are ONLY mentioned in the third person as those NOT speaking and NOT present!! We see their PRAYERS present but we do not see THEM present!

6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits [1] of God sent out into all the earth.
7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the [/b]twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.[/b]
9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by DHK
Obviously not!

God is not the God of the dead but of the living. The reason that he made that statement is that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but of course Christ and his disciples did. He was pointing out the error of their way. There was a resurrection. There are people in heaven--even now.

As the saying goes "dead wrong" sir.

Christ points SPECIFICALLY to God speaking with Moses at the burning bush saying "I Am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" and then says "God is not the God of the DEAD".

The argument he was making WAS NOT that the Abraham HAD ALREADY BEEN RESURRECTED as you seem to widly speculate!!

EVEN in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Abraham is NOT pictured as one who HAS ALREADY been resurrected!!

Christ stated that HIS INTENT was "REGARDING the RESURRECTION" to PROVE the resurrection!

How does he PROVE it to Sadducees? He Shows them from scripture that there HAS to be a resurrection because that is the ONLY SOLUTION for getting God's statement to Moses at the burning bush to be found to be true SINCE "God is NOT the God of the DEAD"!!

The point is glaringly obvious and it only works one way!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

As the saying goes "dead wrong" sir.

Christ points SPECIFICALLY to God speaking with Moses at the burning bush saying "I Am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" and then says "God is not the God of the DEAD".

The argument he was making WAS NOT that the Abraham HAD ALREADY BEEN RESURRECTED as you seem to widly speculate!!
Bob

Bob, I don't know whether to say that you have falsely accused me, deliberately misrepresented what I have said, or simply don't understand what I have said. But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

I never once said or even implied that Abraham had already been resurrected. Please provide evidence. Christ said that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Are you willing to take him at his word or not. It seems to me that you are calling him a liar, or to put it more politely, that you disbelieve his word, and continue in a state of disbelieve.
God is not the God of the dead.
God is not the God of those that are in a state of soul sleep (provide scripture).
God is not the God of those that are annihilated.

He is the God of the living. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. The living that the Lord referred to were indeed the patriarchal fathers--Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--whose bodies to this day are in the grave. The resurrection has not yet taken place. Yet God is the God of the living, and these patriarchal fathers are with Jesus today, for God is the God of the living. How is that. They are with Christ in their spirits. Again, let me emphasize: this Scripture only demonstrates that the doctrine of soul sleep is a hoax, and could never be true. God is the God of the living not of those sleepy souls. You have no case.

 

[BobRyan]

In the case of Matt 22 and Christ's debate with the Sadducees saying that as God spoke to Moses "I am the God of Abraham" long after Abraham's death ... Christ CONFIRMS the Sadducees belief "God is NOT the God of the dead" and then leads to them to the only possible solution -- Abraham WOULD be raised some day in the resurrection.

But then DHK argues

He was pointing out the error of their way. There was a resurrection. There are people in heaven--even now.

While we all can agree that Christ was pointing to the fact of a future resurrection WE CAN NOT agree that Christ was making the argument that Abraham "is in heaven even now" due to that resurrection"

Obviously.

Bob, I don't know whether to say that you have falsely accused me, deliberately misrepresented what I have said, or simply don't understand what I have said. But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

I never once said or even implied that Abraham had already been resurrected. Please provide evidence.

Please read your OWN quote provided here "again" just as it was the FIRST time I pointed this out sir.

Christ said that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Are you willing to take him at his word or not.

I am.

And the Sadducees though violently opposed to him AGREED with this because to the Sadducees this is ABSOLUTE truth! God is NOT the God of the dead.

As to WHY the Sadducees would be agreeing with Christ on this point (Christ the one they were plotting to kill) we can EASILY see that it is because this statement of Christ was common ground where both of them AGREED and both had Bible support for accepting that truth (as has already been shown on this thread).

I keep SHOWING how there is COMPLETE agreement with Christ's statement "God is NOT the God of the dead" from both Scripture AND the Sadducees position in Matt 22 - and you keep ignoring it.

Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hopefor your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity
Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity


Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In post 165 (also repeated in the post above "again" -- I gave the reason why both Sadducee AND scripture affirms Christ statement "God is NOT the God of the Dead but of the living" and so DHK responds with the totally illogical wild accusation

DHK said
Christ said that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Are you willing to take him at his word or not. It seems to me that you are calling him a liar, or to put it more politely, that you disbelieve his word, and continue in a state of disbelieve.

Can anyone doubt the difficulty that kind of response poses for having a meaning full discussion??

 

[BobRyan]

DHK continues his wild claims regarding Matt 22 and Christ's words to the Sadducees in making his case FOR THE RESURRECTION.

(Notice Christ does NOT claim to be proving THE IMMORTAL SOUL doctrine but the RESURRECTION... both of which the sadducees would reject)

He is the God of the living. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

#1. This is an argument Christ NEVER MADE -- and certainly not in Matt 22 where the ONLY point was that God is NOT the God of the DEAD but just of the Living.

#2. The statement above highlighted in green is NOT found in ALL OF SCRIPTURE much LESS in Matt 22!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

In the case of Matt 22 and Christ's debate with the Sadducees saying that as God spoke to Moses "I am the God of Abraham" long after Abraham's death ... Christ CONFIRMS the Sadducees belief "God is NOT the God of the dead" and then leads to them to the only possible solution -- Abraham WOULD be raised some day in the resurrection.

But then DHK argues

While we all can agree that Christ was pointing to the fact of a future resurrection WE CAN NOT agree that Christ was making the argument that Abraham "is in heaven even now" due to that resurrection"

Obviously.



Please read your OWN quote provided here "again" just as it was the FIRST time I pointed this out sir.



I am.

And the Sadducees though violently opposed to him AGREED with this because to the Sadducees this is ABSOLUTE truth! God is NOT the God of the dead.

As to WHY the Sadducees would be agreeing with Christ on this point (Christ the one they were plotting to kill) we can EASILY see that it is because this statement of Christ was common ground where both of them AGREED and both had Bible support for accepting that truth (as has already been shown on this thread).

I keep SHOWING how there is COMPLETE agreement with Christ's statement "God is NOT the God of the dead" from both Scripture AND the Sadducees position in Matt 22 - and you keep ignoring it.
Bob

No, Bob, You haven't done as you have claimed.
There wasn't complete agreement.
When Jesus made the statement: "God is not the God of the dead but of the living," there is nothing in the record to say that the Sadducees were in agreement. It was at that point that the Sadducees were defeated in their argument. They did not believe in the resurrection, and though Jesus had proved the point well, that didn't change their minds. They went on in their unbelief. He had defeated their argument, but in no way were they in complete agreement with Jesus. Because they continued in their unbelief, to say they were in agreement would make Christ a heretic, because the minds of the Sadducees were unaffected by Christ's words.

 

[BobRyan]

No, Bob, You haven't done as you have claimed.
There wasn't complete agreement.
When Jesus made the statement: "God is not the God of the dead but of the living," there is nothing in the record to say that the Sadducees were in agreement. It was at that point that the Sadducees were defeated in their argument. They did not believe in the resurrection, and though Jesus had proved the point well, that didn't change their minds.

How did he "prove" the point to them? what was the irrefutable argument He made to them that THEY would not get around?

See the problem? If you just "make stuff up" as you have done - you destroy the entire strength of his compelling argument.

you simply made one up an argument of the form "All these OT saints, as well as all the believers in Christ since that time are all alive with Christ in Heaven " Which is wording we DO NOT find Christ using in Matt 22 and it is the point "TO BE PROVEN" with Sadducees NOT an argument that "THEY" would make or do anything but laugh at and deride. The ONLY way to put a debate opponent in a corner where they have NO answer is to use that part of the argument that the AGREE WITH to force them into the part where they DO NOT! Just as is the case with every argument I have with you or anyone else!!

Obviously!

The amazing thing is that the logical "corner" that he forced them into was sooooo compelling that they were silenced and the Pharisess (who DID accept the resurrection and often debated this point with the Sadducees) were AMAZED at the brilliant logic and the total "non-answer" that the Sadducees were forced into by the form of this simple yet compelling argument.

Recall that NO debate can be won by a lame argument of the form "My opinion is right because I say it is" - so try to stay in the realm of reason as you respond to this point. You never view an exchange won in the form of "My side is right because I always say it is right"!! And the Pharisees admit it when they see how Christ put the Sadducees to silence.

In Matt 22 Christ took TWO points that the Sadducees HELD to be true and put them TOGETHER -- hence the problem for the Sadducees. (A tactic that works that way in ALL such debates!! Obviously).

A. God is NOT the God of the DEAD - just of the living.

B. Exodus tells us that God said to Moses "I AM the God of Abraham"


Placing these TWO agreed upon points TOGETHER - resulted in "innescapable PROOF of the resurrection" since it is ONLY via the "solution" of the resurrection that BOTH statements CAN be true!! And the ONLY way for this PROOF TO WORK - is to completely inserting things into the discussion making "stuff up" as in the form of DHK's INSERT ""All these OT saints, as well as all the believers in Christ since that time are all alive with Christ in Heaven "

Such "inserts" do NOT "require" the solution of the resurrection to SOLVE the problem of A, B above.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob