Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

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.

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.

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.

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

EAM writes: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------PD writes:Great, thanks for that response, now lets do it one more way, In YOUR estimation,(YOUR BELIEFS) are these the words of God or of men. It always helps if you have a common frame of reference. Not if it is irrelevant but in your educated opinion, whos words are these in these texts we are quoting.PD writes:Its hardly a 'schtick', depending on who one sees as the author of these words. I do like that word (schtick)though, its like that word 'Magilla', if I spelled that right. Its one of those funny words that hardly gets used anymore. It also tells me something of you age, Ha, HaIt will become extremely important once discussion begins. Also, if this line of reasoning looks familiar it should, its the same question Jesus put to the skeptics of his day, when he asked:"The teaching of John, was it of God or man?"It makes all the difference in the world and in the scripturesIll respond to the rest of the post once you clarify this point.Hey, thanks again.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

CD writes:You seem to be a happy go lucky kind of fella, again thats funny, it adds a bit of spice to an otherwise uptight situation, your a gas.the automated computer writes:I guess cavediver makes mistakes as well, its ok Ill overlook it if you willEAM

PD writes:If I say you will DIE if you run in front of a train, that is plain and simple and immediate, that is not what author is saying even in the Old testament passagesIf the text means what it says and we should take it at face value, why did Adam and others live to extreme ages, was God lying. If God meant death at some future point, it is not evidenced in the text is it. So how can we take the text at face value, your argument seems to make no sense. You seem to want it both ways. Now since this flexible interpretation is clearly evident, it may mean something else given the various definitions of the word 'Soul', given by the author I provided in the link.There is also a word for spirit which has 9 different meanings depending on the text.this is a Bible fourm, we are dealing with spiritual questions, the question as to whether YOU believe these are the words of men or God is MORE than relevant. Now since I have demonstrated from the text that you cannot always determine what type of death is involved I would appreciate it if you would answer this simple question.That is unless you think it will put your position in contradictionIn YOUR view are these the words of God or men, please respondEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ill take this as a tentative NO, to my question Is there only one meaning to the hebrew word 'Soul', only one application I thought I was.Requesting whether you believe these are the words of men or God is a reasonable request given the nature of the topic, even if you consider this a science forum. Given your present post I am forced to assume that you may not, and that the vast majority of it is simply metaphors and tales.In post 20 you wrote:Now you say God may have lied or changed his mind. now you say that in all the instances where God said people would die as a result of sin, that may not be the case. Does DIE mean what is says or doesnt it.Or, maybe there is more to the meaning of the words 'Soul' and 'die', than you are contemplatingNow watch this point, doesnt your explanation in this regard indicate without doubt that the term 'die' may not indicate physical death, only? The AMBIGUITY which you demonstrate in your explanations is nearly proof positive that one need not be dogmatic about its application.Further, if indeed this is actually a work of God or Gods words, then its meaning could have a spiritual application. there is no need to take a materialistic stance given the fact that in nearly no instance where God made this statement, people died immediately. Is it good exegesis to assume that in every instance and with every person God cahnged his mind or lied.Remember, this pronouncement was on humankind, not just two people in a garden. the logical conclusion is that the word 'Soul' and 'Die' in Ezekiel should be undertood comprehensively and not limited to a single definition. No one, not even the text is suggesting that spiritual death is a non existence. The separation is one of RELATIONSHIP not existence. Satans expulsion was from spiritual place in a Spiritual existence without going out of existence. The soul dies by ETERNAL separation from Gods immediate presence through separation while still in existence. "This is the second death"Understand this as well. By the of time Ezekiel the pronouncement, "the soul that sins it will die", had to have application in a spiritual sense, since people had already began to experience the consequences of Adam disobedience. again it makes no sense to threaten someone with what they know and have experinced already, unless there is a way of excape.Paul stated: "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ"Its all God's words and God's eternal plan from the foundation of the world I dont know where you pulled that out of. "thou shalt not kill", means "Thou shalt not die" ???PD writes:God is not a monster, nor does he deal in punishment exclusively. "relocated" as you say, hardly describes what was lost in the garden. they most certainly were separated from God by sin and began to die physically. if it is to be believed, Satan was most certainly separated from Gods Spirit, when he was cast out.However, God is God overall and the separation is one of relationship not one of existence. Satan was required to be at the Staff meeting of all the angels in Gods presence in the book of Job"Blessed is the man to whom God does not imput sin',(charge to his account)"There is now no condemnation tho them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"God does not take us out of existence and he is still in control of everything, including Hell and Satan. perhaps you could give your definition of dualismEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes:Whaaaat?I dont believe what I am hearing here, you do understand how ridiculous this sounds, correct? When a judge pronounces judgement on someone is he killing them as in the sense of murder. You have got to be kidding. No wonder you dont understand what the Soul or death involves from a Biblical perspective.PD writes:PD writes: You are carefully avoiding the argument. This is a clear instance of a person being obstinate and obtuse in an argument. Lets see if you will answer this question. When a person is put in prison or executed is the state or country in effect telling that person that your rights are revoked and you are cut off from a relationship from the state and from the people.There is a break in relationship and you know it. The same applies to God and his children, ignoring or avoiding this point will not help your position or your argument.Now according to scripture, this separation will occur eternally in a place where man will dwell eternally. OH YEAH, thats right you havent ANSWERED the simple question as to whether you believe any of this is actually Gods word or not, Old or New. Please explain why in a biblical discussion that involves God, Spirits, souls, punishment and other related spiritual items this so difficult a question to answer.The definitions provided by Kbertsche in post 35 are a clear indication that your intimations about what people believed at these times are to strict and categorical. certainly some people may have belived such things as you are indicating and even people within groups may have had varing opinions but your positon is simply to categorical. You explanation of these terms do not compare with what scholars say about these words or thier beliefs in those days. Your isolating and defining words to categorically and disregarding context and the SUBJECT matter, specifically God and his eternal dwelling I have shown it by the text itself, Ezekiels (Gods command), Adam and Eve, that separation involves RELATIONSHIP and the argument that further inspiration would clarify what GOOOOOOD's meaning of death, soul and punishment would be. Now ALL you all you need to do clarify what or if any of part of this is INSPIRED or NOT, it would help us understand not only your position, but what the actually application of these words in the context would mean. Your failure to do this stalls the debate.Lets put it this way and see if you will answer it. It there any POSSIBILITY at all that any of this can have a SPIRITUAL application, seeing that God, God's existence and Gods rules are involved. In other words the TEXT itself, the same one that you draw your conclusions from directly state and imply the SPIRITUAL
aspects of these concepts. Sin is a moral and ethical concept. Death from Gods (Spiritual and eternal) perspective would have a different menaing than simply physical. That is if you would be kind enough to tell us whether God has anything to actually do with the inspiration of these alledged words from him.Your position in not answering these simple questions, is like talking about a submarine and saying that water and its properties dont matter in its construction. Help us out here PD.Heck do you even believe in God? I have repeatedly, but what good will it do unless you state your position on God or whether any of this is from God or not. You being overly obstinate and unreasonable in this discussion. Your taking a humanist and materialistic stance when dealing with clearly Spiritual and God matters. Thats simply ridiculous. I have given evidence, now provide an answer t these simple questions, please!!!!EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

EAM writes:HG writes:thanks
Atleast you take the time to answer a simple question. PD wont because he knows it will throw his conclusions into contradiction and confusion.I am busy presently but I will get to the rest of your questions later.EAM

PD writes:Ignoring my arguments is not the same as missing itIll get to the rest of this post alittle later, let me present this in this connection presently, i forgot to include it in the last post.Here it is in syllogism formMajor premise:
God pronounced the sentence of death on any soul that sinnedMinor premise:
God clearly commuted (set aside) that sentence due to the fact that people did not immediatley die as a result of sinConclusion:
therefore because God is involved in such matters one is not warrented in concluding that death is always immediate, the soul has no other properties than physical or that death is only physical in nature, based on the single definition of a word and due to the fact that God himself is not physical and these are clearly spiritual concepts and ideas, eternal in character. EndWord definition is not the only consideration. Gods nature, character and purposes must be taken into consideration., not to mention context. To isolate words by thier srtict definition and apply them to both God and man in the same way is both unreasonable and unwarrented, scripturally speaking.Definitions of words dont always carry the same meaning to God as to humans, the context and the entirity of scripture will reveal its over all meaning, If you will tell us what that is. Yes it does matter for the logical reasons have presented aboveJesus said "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" If we go by the strict meaning of the word sword, you see what happens. the word here clearly has a physical definition but is used in a dual sense where the ethical term sin is involved God is using the word death in a dual sense if we consider what the entirity of scrpture has to say. That is if you will tell us what Gods words are.Your first mistake is assuming that words cannot have a dual meaning to God or man, regardless of thier strict definition, or what a group of people believes, as i have just indicated.Your second problem is that you are assuming that the hearer always has to understand the entire purpose of a statement immediatley for it to be valid or dual. I have already demonsrtated this is not the case as in the examples with Gods words to Satan in Genesis and Gods words to Abraham in Genesis. It should be obvious that if these situations are real niether person understood the entire meaning immediately. Hey, but God did and we do now.Your intimation that God does not matter and that your position on God does not matter is both unreasonable and illogical, your insistance that a word must be abided by disregarding context, Gods overall plans and overall content of the entire subject scripturally is simply silly. Your position is invalidated. Even if one does not believe in the inspired nature of scripture he is atleast obligated to view its entire content, if he or she wishes to formulate opinions on words or ideasYour view on what is mans words and what are Gods words either partially or collectively most certainly matterEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Purpledawn writes:They do if God is the author. They do if it can be demonstrated that from a collective understanding in scripture, there is both a temporal and spiritual death and it clearly can be. thus your contention that: is completely nonsensical and unscriptural, if I may borrow a phrase from you. Isolating words, concepts and doctrines in single words is not good exegesis and a misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of God, even in the Old Testament. The audience as you suggest would learn this from more than a single word, they would learn it from the "whole counsel of God". If I had only the Old testament and not the new, one could still deduce an after life, exsistence after life, eternal life, soul apart from body and Spirit, etc, etc, etc.I never said the audience doesnt need to understand what they are listening to i was simply indicating that it was not necessary for the them to understand COMPLETELY all the ramifications immediately only that it was necessary for them to understand presently that God did not and would not tolerate disobedience in any form, shape or fashion. I have already demonstrated with two examples that God can
have a secondary or dual meaning in a statement or a word, FOR HIS PURPOSES, and at the same time convey a immediate message to the hearer Will you deny that bsaed on the two examples I have presented that God can, A. Have secondary meanings to the hearer., ie Abraham and Satan and that , B. The hearer does not need to understand all of the ramifications presently to get the overall message.people of these days were fully aware of the concept of the afterlife, the soul apart from the body, the concept of spirits and the such like.Job 32:8 states, "THERE IS A SPIRIT IN MAN AND THE INSPIRATION OF THE ALMIGHTY GIVETH THEM UNDERSTANDING."Now I know this was spoken by a man , Jobs friend, but there is no reason to suggest that the speaker means only an ability different than animals. Further if we are created in the image of God and there is a spirit in man, the combination of these two concepts to the person of that day would have naturally lead one to believe, there was something seprate from the physical.Other verses further indicate a dual concept and I know you have seen these verses and given you estimation of them in this context but I dont see why one is wrong in assuming that the author of Job is not suggesting something different from the pysical aloneJob 31:5 "Into thy hands I commit my Spirit, thou hast redeemed me oh God of truth".Now, one could conclude that the writer meant this from a physical going out of exsistence sense, but does that really make any real sense if you read it in context. So the writer or speaker is saying, into thy hands I commit my non-exsistence, my dead lifeless corpse, that serves no further use or purpose? Keeping in mind that you also indicated that these people had no concept of ressurection either. So perhaps you could give an explanation of this statement.There is no valid reason to believe that Job or Christ should have only the physical in mind when making this statement. The combination of the collective uses of these words throughout the Old Testament would do them wrong to suggest otherwiseYour isolation of word usage does not confrom to reason, history or the entirity of Gods word, even if you are speaking only about the Old Testament. But since you have not denied that the New Testament is not the word of God we can therefore conclude that he made allitle clearer the menaings and definitions that were not always so clear in the past and that you CONTENTION that these are inventions of a later people, is unjustified and unwarrented.Let me ask one more question in this connection. I understand your OP and I understand your purpose, we will probably never agree on the content or usage. However, is there a reason fro making this distinction? Are you trying to imply that there is no afterlife for man, the soul which is essentially the mind just dies and we do not go on in any form? Is this your implication@ Or is there another I am not seeing besides the word usage? are you implying anything in your contentions?
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

He most certainly did. Trying to separate, the concepts of God, Spirit, sin and death and limit it to only physical qualities in connection with what the totality of scripture has to say in context is simply silly. Your refusal to acknowledge this point and provide to us what you consider Gods words, causes you to provide the above nonsensical statement Another problem I think you are experiencing in this regards, is that, you are trying to compare types of death with the DEFINITON of the word death. Ofcourse your only going to get a single definition from a word. Simply because the word "spiritual" is not mentioned, in the definition of the word death does not mean this is not what God has in mind. Pauls statement that "the wages of sin are death", could be understood in this manner as well, if not taken in context and without the entirity of Gods teaching. Yes, ofcourse the word DEATH is only going to be translated as cessation, but the only thing you can compare the word death with is life, not TYPES of death, that must be GLEENED from the context Even thought the word is translated as cessation, you are not warrented in assuming it only refers to physical death.Here is another example of word usage. take the word Sin as an example. Now it most certainly will have a specific meaning or definition but can be used in a dual sense."The wages of SIN sre death"
"The soul that SINS it will die'Now using common sense and context, do you think the writer means ONE sin, two sins, three sins or SIN OVERALL. The latter is no doubt what he means, now watch this, even thought the word sin can refer to a SINGLE act or a lifetime of sin. A perfect example of dual purpose of a word, that has only a specfic meaning or DEFINITION The same thing can be demonstrated for the word death, even thought it has a Specific definition. Are you starting to get the idea?The word evil or disobedience certainly have a specific meanings but does it have to only refer to a physical , earthly context?If I were at the hospital and said someone was brain dead, you would understand me to mean they were dead already, (and they are)for all intents and purposes, even thought the body was still functioning and ALIVE. So while describing a TYPE of death, I am actually saying they are dead alreadyYes ocfourse a word does not have DUAL meanings but it can have dual PURPOSE in its context, you call this creativity but it is actually context and subject matter of the author, in this case it it God. You are ASSUMING the usage and purpose from only THE readers perspective.here is an example, "they shall beat thier swords into plow sheers" Now while the words can only be translated as sword and shears, STRICTLY, they a DUAL purpose by the author, a time of peace by those that use to be enemies. No one understands this to mean, people actually doing the act of beating swords into shears, and even if they did, it has another purpose."The soul that sins, it will die". Yes ofcourse the word can be translated as stricly death, but God has dual purpose in the overall context, regardless of whether the reader understands it completley. Yes you are correct, the word spiritual has nothing to do with the word death, that is, when they are translated you are going to get different meanings of two different words. Also because you are comparing TYPES Of death with the word death itself, ofcourse you not going to see spiritual, when the word BY ITSELF, means only one thing. You can only COMPARE or TRANSLATE the word death and its definition to the word life. The context and overall content will determine what type of death and what type of life, is under considerationYour making a really simple thing very complicated. Attempting to intimate that spiritual death is not biblical from the word alone is both nonsensical and unscripturalEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

K writes:You are absolutley correct K, he needs this type of explanation to avoid an obvious flaw in his theory about death. There are only two logical possiblities outside of the nonsensical idea that he changed his mind. You have to remember he also does not believe God is omnipotent, that should help us to understand alittle his position on death.The only two logical and scriptrual explanations are that they BEGAN to die physically, which actually came about latter(930 years later), OR another type of death is under consideration, or eve a third, which is really only a combination of the two, that both are under consideration in the verse. he however, will not allow this because he says, it cannot have a dual meaning, but he will not give us any valid reason as to why it cannot be both, other than his opinion.Baring the silly idea that God has changed his mind, this leaves us with another option. Since they did not die immediatley, but BEGAN TO DIE, this now creates another TYPE of death or another explanation of death, other than an immediate cessation of all functions Even if we reduce it to physical death only, we now have another explanation besides the strict dogmatic explanation of the word death offered by him. the truth is that god has a very different idea of what death involves verses Purpledawn.He says that these peoples idea of the soul was that it is really the mind with the body and that death means cessation of all functions, yet how will he explain Saul's encounter with Samuel (after Samuel had died physically) at the witch of endors house. Samuel's soul returned from a place he was presently residing in (Hades) to give Saul specific warnings.Even if one views this as a story the writer and the readers had a view of soul apart from the body and they clearly did not view death as extinction, and PDs position falls to the groundEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.