Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

In various discussions, the concept of spiritual death rises to help explain inconsistencies between Bible authors.My contention is that the Old Testament prophets and writers of the Torah do not present a concept of spiritual death. I feel that the spiritual death concept is a later concept influenced by Greek philosophers. I’m not even sure that the current usage of the term spiritual death is the same as the Greek concept of material and spiritual.One example of this issue are the verses Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 It has been argued that the punishment in these verses may deal with spiritual death and not real time physical punishment or death.
I feel that the verses show a change in the society. The Priestly Exodus verse is corporate oriented and pertains to those who supposedly hate God. Probably written before the fall of the southern kingdom.The later Ezekiel verse deals with individuals and administering punishment. According to the author of John, even the disciples of Jesus associated physical afflictions with sin of the individual or their parents. I don’t feel that either verse is referring to a spiritual death or a future ethereal punishment. I don’t feel that the prophets or the Torah writers referred to spiritual death. Punishment and death were real time and physical.The threat of death for eating from the tree of knowledge is also attributed to spiritual death and not real time physical death.Show me that any of the plain text readings of the prophets or the Torah writers speak of spiritual death or future ethereal punishment without invoking later concepts or adding to the text.(I request this be placed in "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" thread. - Thanks)Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

Thread copied here from the Spiritual Death is Not Biblical thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Lets examine this lecture in confusion, as it exists right off the bat
First PD writes: Bt this I assume you mean the Old and New testamentThen PD amazingly writes:By (later concepts)I assume you mean the New Testament and its teachings, which clearly do speak about a spiritual death, ie, "and this is the second death", Rev, etc, etc, etc. So then Spiritual death is BIBLICAL, if you use the WHOLE Bible, correctI would suggest you figure out how to first form a logical solid proposition, then you can enter into an intelligent conversation.So when you say its not BIBLICAL, do you mean all of the Bible or only the portions you wish to use. Come on PD, this is the very reason I would not engage you in the other thread. How do you discuss the scriptures with someone that actually believes God did not know where Satan was before he questioned him in JobFurther, this is a Biblical topic not a question of authenticity and should be treated as such, but that part is just my opinionEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Bt this I assume you mean the Old and New testament

---

You don't need to assume. I made my position very clear in the OP which contains my argument, not the title.

quote:

---

By (later concepts)I assume you mean the New Testament and its teachings, which clearly do speak about a spiritual death, ie, "and this is the second death", Rev, etc, etc, etc. So then Spiritual death is BIBLICAL, if you use the WHOLE Bible, correct

---

Again, no need to assume anything. I made it very clear. See quote above.If you're going to participate in this thread, please address the topic and present your arguments.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You absolutely did not make yourself clear, and "by assume", i mean, I am asking you a direct question, here it is again since you like the evasion game. By Biblical do you mean the Old and New Testaments, the sixty six books we commonly use, Yes or No?If not, will you explain what you mean by 'biblical in your topic,Or will you point out what you mean by Biblical, by what I alledgedly missed in your OP, it is confusing from that standpoint alone. Your topic and the OP are in contradiction, by common usage of the term Biblical, so please answer a direct question, please.You quote from Ezekiel, Exodus and John, but then seem to imply that John is a later writing that was influenced by greek thinking. So is John to be condidered Biblical or not.Should we include the Gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi, etc. What is the playing field PurpleDawn?Here is another question, by biblical, do you mean a collection of writings of a bunch of men or do you mean they all have the possibility to be inspired of God? In other words, do you have a position o n that matter before discussion beginsEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If not, will you explain what you mean by 'biblical in your topic,

---

My contention is that the Old Testament prophets and writers of the Torah do not present a concept of spiritual death. I feel that the spiritual death concept is a later concept influenced by Greek philosophers. I’m not even sure that the current usage of the term spiritual death is the same as the Greek concept of material and spiritual.

quote:

---

Your topic and the OP are in contradiction, by common usage of the term Biblical, so please answer a direct question, please.

---

The opening post is the topic. The title is just a general idea of what the topic is about and an attention getter. The title is not the argument.Show me that any of the plain text readings of the prophets or the Torah writers speak of spiritual death or future ethereal punishment without invoking later concepts or adding to the text.

Err, from PD's second line: Having a bit of trouble with English are we? I assume from this it is not your first language?

PD Which would be whaaaaaaaat?This aint rocket science fellasI see you also avoided my question about whether these are Gods words or the ramblings of a bunch of men. HmmmmmmEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

A later concept, I'd imagine, is any concept that was recorded after the writings of the Old Testament prophets or the Torah.

An opening post should consist of the topic question or statement being considered and the poster's own position concerning the subject. Some background information on the topic question is also good when the question could be perceived several ways.My topic statement: My contention is that the Old Testament prophets and writers of the Torah do not present a concept of spiritual death. I feel that the spiritual death concept is a later concept influenced by Greek philosophers. I’m not even sure that the current usage of the term spiritual death is the same as the Greek concept of material and spiritual.My topic statement tells readers that I am focusing this topic on the OT prophets and the writers of the Torah (1st five books). (Admins like the topics narrowly focused.) I have also told readers that I feel the spiritual death idea is a later concept influenced by the Greek philosophers, which gives them a timeline of when the influence might have began. I've also given the idea that the current religious usage of the term "spiritual death" may not be the same meaning as the Greek concept that inspired it.I then gave two examples of where the "spiritual death" idea has been used to help smooth textual inconsistencies between authors.My closing statement explained what I would like to see take place in this discussion.Show me that any of the plain text readings of the prophets or the Torah writers speak of spiritual death or future ethereal punishment without invoking later concepts or adding to the text.This statement clarifies that I want to look at the plain text and not added unsupported stories or later ideas projected backwards. As Modulous pointed out, that means any concept after the writing of the OT prophets or the Torah.I also restate that the focus is on the OT prophets and the Torah writers (1st five books). Biblical means being in accord with the Bible.Where you pull your information from for your argument is up to you, but if you bring up a later concept and apply it to the past; you also need to provide support as to how the plain text in the past says what you claim it says.Dost thou comprehend?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Purpledawn writes:Thank you, clear enough. Thanks for answering and narrowing down your first premise. the second one is even more important. Are these the writings of men only, or is there the possibilty that not only the Old but New is the work of God through inspiration. If no, then it makes little difference what they thought in relation to someone else 1000 years later.However, if the author is God, then expressions even made by people who dont fully understand what they are speaking through inspiration, could have a deeper meaning than just physical death, even if spoken by thise long ago.Consider these passages"the soul that sins it will die" Ezekiel
"the wages of sin is death" Romansthough spoken centuries apart the writers could or could not have the samething in mind, if they are the only source and motivation for the statements they may mean only physical death, or something totally different from eachotherIf however God is the author as HG suggested, if even 'FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, there could be a deeper meaning and there should be consistency, than that spoken by the individual Here is an example.After, eating of the fruit God said to the serpent, "I will put emnity between thy seed and her seed, you will bruise his heel and he will crush your head" As most believe a reference to Christ and the crucifixiton(bruise his heel) and ressurrection (crush your head).Now I doubt satan understood Gods statement, I doubt Moses or the suthor understood it, but it had a meaning that was later to be revealed in further instances and other writings.To Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation and through thy SEED all the nations of the earth will be blessed." Now watch this, I doubt the Abraham or the writer understood the ramifications of this statement. but it was not necessary that they did. The point here is that it is not ALWAYS for the writer to understand what is spoken through inspiration.In like manner, "In the day you eat of it you will surely die"
"the soul that sins it will die"Since these people did not immediatley die, it is not ADDING to the text to imply that there must be a deeper meaning. further INSPIRATION only clarifies what type of death is contemplated here the same way further inspiration clarifies the meaning of the passages to Satan and Abraham.Since they did not die immediately you would need to demonstrate that the author did not have something else in mind as well, if it is not a product of inspiration, ie, "the soul that sins it will die" Since as I have already indicated before and to which you did not respond, why would you need to THREATEN OR TELL someone they are going to die as a result of this or that, IF THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY.the iorny is that you are playing the role of Satan here. You are telling people the same thing Satan told Eve, "You will NOT surely die, for in the day you eat your eyes will be opened and you will be like God. Satan told a half truth, it is true they did not die immediately, because this is not the ONLY type of death God had in mind. Its almost as if you are trying to convince people of the samething Satan was, that they need not worry about any spiritual death because its not real. Whoo, now that is a wierd coincidence isnt it?PD writes:I understandest more clearly than thyself friend, because thou still drinketh milk and do not eat meat.So be even more helpful in helping us to understand what your position on these texts are, ie, mans words, Gods and mans words, Gods words only, or, I dont know, or, I dont care or its irrelevant to the subject at hand, from your perspectivePaul said, "Recieve the weaker brother but not to doubtful disputations" (arguments over questions) I almost feel like I am violating his stipulation when dealing with you and you contentionsHere is a place for both us and readers to starthttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/159EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

CD writes:I would stick to quarks, black holes and imaginary multiverses fella, your way out of your leauge here, but thanks for the jibe that was funny.EAM

Hi purpledawn,
it seems like ages since we've discussed anything!you would do well to begin with exactly what you mean by spiritual death. In my opinion a spiritual death is when God cuts a person off from his presence. In this sense, we could say that Adam and Eve suffered a spiritual death before they suffered a physcial death. Similar with Cain, he was banished from the sight of God (so to speak) And its also noteworthy that isrealites who failed to comply with the law were to be cut off from the assembly.so what is your interpretation of a spiritual death? And how does a person come to life spiritually...because if there is a spiritual death, there must be a spiritual life too. Try Ezekiel 37:1-12 & vs 13-14the prophet uses death to represent a change in the spiritual condition of God’s people when they were taken into exile in Babylon as punishment for their disloyalty to God.Zech. 7:11-14 speaks of the nation of isreal refusing to listen to God and thus becoming 'desolate'You could also look at these scriptures which also refer to the isrealites in captivity Isaiah1:5-6; 33:24 & 35:5-6
Jerimiah 33:6 Isaiah speaks of spiritual food and shows the lack of it causes the spirit to 'breakdown'Isaiah 65:13-14
"Look! My own servants will eat, but YOU yourselves will go hungry. Look! My own servants will drink, but YOU yourselves will go thirsty. Look! My own servants will rejoice, but YOU yourselves will suffer shame. 14Look! My own servants will cry out joyfully because of the good condition of the heart, but YOU yourselves will make outcries because of the pain of heart and YOU will howl because of sheer breakdown of spirit"Im using this scripture to show that spiritual food leads to spiritual life and a lack of spiritual food leads to a breakdown of spirit. So a person could starve spriritually and be spiritually dead, they could also come back to life if they began to partake of spiritual food again. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Guess I was right Geez, is God paying triple bonus on pride this week? Funny, 'cos I always thought he was against that kind of thing Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Thanks for answering and narrowing down your first premise. the second one is even more important. Are these the writings of men only, or is there the possibilty that not only the Old but New is the work of God through inspiration. If no, then it makes little difference what they thought in relation to someone else 1000 years later.

​

However, if the author is God, then expressions even made by people who dont fully understand what they are speaking through inspiration, could have a deeper meaning than just physical death, even if spoken by thise long ago.

---

That's your schtick? The writers didn't understand what they were writing? That would mean the audience didn't understand what they were hearing. That would make it pointless for God to have something written before people could understand it. Please show evidence that the writers and the people didn't understand what they wrote or heard.The plain text is simply that. It doesn't matter if it was written by men or imparted by God. You need to show that the text says what you claim it says. Inspiration is not impartation. Only the prophets claim visions from God. If you feel they also didn't understand what they were saying, then again you please show evidence that the prophets didn't understand what they wrote and their audiences didn't understand what they heard.

quote:

---

though spoken centuries apart the writers could or could not have the samething in mind, if they are the only source and motivation for the statements they may mean only physical death, or something totally different from eachother

---

My contention is that Ezekiel meant the one who sins will pay the price for the sin, not the rest of his family. Real time penalty for real time sin. If you feel he meant spiritual death, please show evidence to support your position.

quote:

---

Now I doubt satan understood Gods statement, I doubt Moses or the suthor understood it, but it had a meaning that was later to be revealed in further instances and other writings.

​

To Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation and through thy SEED all the nations of the earth will be blessed." Now watch this, I doubt the Abraham or the writer understood the ramifications of this statement. but it was not necessary that they did. The point here is that it is not ALWAYS for the writer to understand what is spoken through inspiration.

---

That's projecting a later concept onto the document. As I said in Message 10, if you bring up a later concept and apply it to the past; you also need to provide support as to how the plain text in the past says what you claim it says.

quote:

---

Since they did not die immediately you would need to demonstrate that the author did not have something else in mind as well, if it is not a product of inspiration, ie, "the soul that sins it will die" Since as I have already indicated before and to which you did not respond, why would you need to THREATEN OR TELL someone they are going to die as a result of this or that, IF THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY.

---

Please don't channel other threads without linking to the post. We are looking at the plain text. Show evidence that the word die didn't refer to physical death, but referred to spiritual death. Show evidence that the ancient audience understood spiritual death and not physical death.

quote:

---

the iorny is that you are playing the role of Satan here. You are telling people the same thing Satan told Eve, "You will NOT surely die, for in the day you eat your eyes will be opened and you will be like God. Satan told a half truth, it is true they did not die immediately, because this is not the ONLY type of death God had in mind. Its almost as if you are trying to convince people of the samething Satan was, that they need not worry about any spiritual death because its not real. Whoo, now that is a wierd coincidence isnt it?

---

Wow, usually I get lumped with Satan further into the thread, but thanks for getting that out of your system early.Yes, when we understand the plain test interpretations, Satan is exposed for what he is. Dogma hides what Satan really is and doesn't allow people to face the reality. Just like a writer needs to know his audience, a warrior needs to know his enemy.Just as the snake misled Eve, you mislead people about the reality of Satan and death.

quote:

---

So be even more helpful in helping us to understand what your position on these texts are, ie, mans words, Gods and mans words, Gods words only, or, I dont know, or, I dont care or its irrelevant to the subject at hand, from your perspective

---

It is irrelevant to this discussion. Either the text says what it means or it doesn't. If it doesn't mean what it says, then evidence is needed.

quote:

---

Paul said, "Recieve the weaker brother but not to doubtful disputations" (arguments over questions) I almost feel like I am violating his stipulation when dealing with you and you contentions

---

Well don't worry yourself about it. I'm not the weaker brother.I'd appreciate it, if you choose to continue in this discussion, if you would cut the bravado and just address the topic of the thread and the arguments concerning it.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz