Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

PDDoes Samuel count as an Old Testament prophet? Read 1 Samuel 28:6-25. No doubt you have ready explanation as to why this illustration from one of the prophets, does not count as soul apart from body and why death means extinction or cessation.Nonetheless it shatters your contention that these people did not have a conception of spirit apart from body and death as separation from God.It would not be unscriptural to insist that Samuel although dead still existed in another form in another place. This illustration from one of the Old Testament prophets corresponds directly with the 'Transfiguration', where Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ. People from recorded had such beliefsBut since the two prophets and moses just came straight from the grave and extinction, they should have been briefed immediatley because they would have no clue what was going on, ha ha.EAM

Yes she would have thought that it was a god, but her contention and estimation notwithstanding, the scripture says it was Samuel who appeared in spirit form, not this "so-called Samuel" and spoke with Saul. Now the scripture has to be believed or it does not. This is however, only a portion of what the totality of scripture has to say about the afterlife, the key words always in Eccl are "under the sun", ie, "the dead know nothing under the sun", thier reward and memory are gone from the living. They are concious of nothing "under the sun"Eccl 3:21-22. Animals and man die, Mans spirit ascends back to God who gave it, Eccl 12:7. Also, look at Heb 9:27EAM

K writes:Correct and Eccl 3:18-22, makes it very clear even in this book that there is a distinction between man an animal, one (the physical) goes to the dust the other (mans spirit)returns to God. Eccl 12:7EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes:The other plain and simple statement in theses passages is that the soul, physical or otherwise "IT WILL DIE", since these people did not die and some lived nearly 1000 years, your contention that the plain and simple text must be observed falls to the ground.The fact that these people did not die or began to die from a state of perfection, demonstrates that your strict adherence to this type of exegesis is not warrented.It also demonstrates that there is another definition of the word death other than the one you offer. Unless youare prepared to demonstrate that in each instance God changed his mind or he lied.I have now presented another definition of the word death than purposed by yourself. Which means if we incorperate the rest of the scriptures, those both close to the Prohets and Torah, that we can get an overall BIBLICAL picture of Spiritual death.You do not have right to set out what the scriptures have to say about a topic by isolating a faulty principle to a set of writings. Unless you are prepared to demonstrate that death in those passages does not mean Spiritual and that the rest of the BIBLICAL record is not Gods word.Your position is faulty, illogical, unscriptural and unwarrented from nearly every perspective.This is called a 'Strawman' in argumentation, there are to many things you need to establish before hand to demonstrate that your OP is valid. This is not how argumentation works, that is the way you are proceedingEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Peg writes:Come on Peg, theres a difference between someone calling him from earth and Samuel hearing them and God knowing what saul was doing and God dispatching him to Saul and the witch. God dispatched Elijah and Moses as well to the tranfiguration, regardless of if they knew anyother specifics of what was happening under the sun.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes:Who gives a rats behind how long they lived, thats not the point. the point is that you have demanded that we take a literal definition and explanation of the word death, which would demand that these people die instantly and immediately according to your strict and dogmatic interpretation.Baring and ignoring such an interpretation, the text and commonsesnse demonsrtrates that they did not die, they continued to live, even when they sinned. this being the case we now have another example of how the word death can be interpreted, not to mention the fact that God can very well have Spiritual death in mind, seeing that the definition is only that of cessation from something, not necessarily limited to the physical body. that is your estimation of the word from the dictionary, not necessarily Gods meaning By verse you mean in the torah and prophets and writings you mean only those, correct?You have maintained that the meaning in Ezekiel can only mean immediate, physical cessation and extinction. These people like Adam and eve did not die immediatley, once they had sinned. The different meaning of the word die, is in the sense that they began to die, or God was speaking of another concept of death as indicated and explidicated by verses in the NT. The word death does not need to be preceeded by the word spiritual for God to have this in mind.Next cessation of life does not have to mean only physical to God. But there in lies your problem you are limiting the definition of death or spiritual death to a group of books and you refuse to tell us what is inspired, what is not , what is Gods Word, what is not Gods Words. looking for a comprehensive definition of the word death from a Biblical perspective and narrowing it down to a few books then insisting this all the Bible has to say concerning death, is a STRAWMAN, or silly to say the least. Death, in the simple reading of the verses in the OP, only demonstrates that death is a cessation of life, it does not tell you what type of life or what God has in mind in the words.Indicating that the Bible may be Gods word changes everything and makes everything clearer.limiting Gods perspective of the word death and idea of death to a few books and a stict definition is building a strawman. Now watch this debating move, unless, you are prepared to say that only the Torah and Prophets are Gods Word. Is this what you are implying or directly stating? I dont need to take away the simple reading of the text, I agree with the simple reading of the text, it only implies cessation of life,, not what type God has in mind. Again you are viewing the text from mans perspective with mans finite understanding, unless you are prepared at this point to indicate that these are only the words of men. Are these the words of men or the words of God through men. All of this halts at an logical empass until you disclose your position on these matters.Im not trying to controvert your thread, but somethings make no logical sense, until such things are revealed by those making the assertions. pieces of the puzzel are missing.it doesnt matter to a hill of beans if you believe that some idea was a latter development, if I do not know with what reagrd you hold the Torah, Prophets, New testament or any other writing for that matter.You made the assertion that spiritual death is not biblical, I have no idea what you mean by Biblical, other than your intimation to the Law and Prophets. Simple enough, now remember this is Biblical accuracy forum correct, atleast that is what you indicated. That being the case, I would indicate that since you have not indicated that the NT is not the word of God, I am warrented in assuming it is also part of the Biblical record, and that while the word death means only cessation of life and does not indicate what type of life, the NT record makes clearer what is involved in the word death from Gods perspective.You have not demonstrated that the definiton of death is limited to a physical property only, especially considering we are dealing with Gods word, concepts and ideas. you have not made clear or indicated whether the words in Ezekiel or Genesis are Gods words or mens wordsThirdly, your "position" as you put it is a totality of what you have asserted, indicated and implied, not what you choose to use later, or simply what is contained in the OP Since you will not indicate what you mean by Biblical, Gods words, Gods concepts, the totality of your assertions, indications and implications imply logical contradictions, when the totality of the BIBLICAL record is taken into consideration.Fourth, indicating that a word carries a certain definition is not the same as showing that another concept is not taught or implied in the same source, especally when dealing with Godly, spiritual and esoteric concepts.fifth. operating under the guidlines you have set out about definitions and plain and simple text interpretations, would actually contradict your ideas on the word death. By all means please show me where i have done this. heck I am trying to get you to put words in your own mouth, ie, What is or is not Gods teaching on death? is it limited to the torah, prophets or what? your positon is illogical and a strawman until your propositon is stated cleary without ambiguity and evasion.Let me put it to you this way PD. On can discuss what a certain people believed about a certain thing at any given time. And one can discuss what Spiritual death is, but to conjoin these two and insist that the only thing that matters is the Torah and Prophets and then INTIMATE that this is all the Biblical record has to offer is not logical or rational, not to mention unscriptural.In other words when you join the two and draw a conclusion you have now formulated a certified argument, which requires more information on your part.now watch I can do the samething you are doing. using you way of proceeding and your line of reasoning, I could conclude that the ancients were actually uninformed on the topic of death because they had a limited understanding of its meaning and usage, until New Testament times when the Holy Spirit illuminated our understanding about the word death and Spiritual death. For my discussion I choose to use only the NT and my conclusion to get a Biblical perspective on this topic. Now will that work, NO.Even if you could demonstrate that death is only physical in certain verses (and you cannot)it would not remove the fact of Spiritual death overall, depending on what overall is. maybe you can help us with that point. My guess is that you will not, because you want the conversation slighted twords your contentions.Here is a simple enough question, In your estimation, not the prophets or Torah, but yours, based on your studies overall, Is spiritual death real or not?My prediction is that you will avoid answering the question as you do anything else that will make the thread make any sense.You imply at times that the NT may not be the Word of God, by making the statement, that these ideas are latter developments, then you pretty much make certain that you believe it is not Gods word because you join the idea that Spiritual death is not Biblical. With these two implications I am warrented in proceeding that you PROBABLY do not consider it as Gods word.Now, watch this, if it is not the discussion goes in another direction. If it is we now have another source to determine what the Biblical record is on death and whether Spiritual death is Biblical or not.Do you see how argumentation works?
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.

since God is God overall he has the right to choose the time and place of his messengers dispatch. You will notice that the witch ran out, which (witch )should have indicated to Saul, that her practice was a phony and that she knew she had not produced the situatiion, which would reinforce to her that she was a phony.In this situation it actually produced an opposite effect to the witches practices, my guess is that she thought twice about doing anything of this nature again, she probably moved to something less dramatic, probably the psychic network. Man am I glad those ignorant commercials are gone, now if we could just get rid of the male enhancement ones life, would be good again. Liberals and thier agendas, they truely are repugnant people. God also, had refudsed Samson his powers, and separated himself from him during his capture, until such a time as he (God) thought it necessary to restore his presence and power to Samson. God Does things on his own time and according to his eternal purposes.You and others here really should learn this simple principle and trust in God that knows what he is doing.Again with the wicked King, he fianally made contact with him and said, through handwriting on the wall, "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting".In the same way this was Sauls final judgement (sentencing)here on earth, then he died I certainly agree with your estimation on the last part of your statement, but i most certainly do not agree with the idea that this was a vision. there is no reason to assume that it was, unless one has another doctrinal issue of the afterlife before they come to the transfiguation. the text says that Moses and Elijah appeared to gether with Christ, you are reading vision into the text.in most places, the text will demonstrate that it was a vision or a dream, that is not the case here "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have EVERLASTING life"You believe what you want, Im going with (John)Jesus on this oneEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

If calling in a moderator is the only way I can get you to answer direct questions that relate directly to the assertions and contentions, them by all means, call one in. that is nonsensical, you cannot separate the position from the person, it came from your mind, its you making the assertions., ie "Spiritual death is not Biblical". did you say this or not?If Spiritual death is not biblical and biblical means being in accord with the Bible, what gives you the right to limit the concept of spiritual death to certain books of the Bible. I have agreed that physical death is involved in the definition, not that it is limited to physical death only, that is your contention. however, even assuming this for argument sake (which I was doing), this does not translate to "Spiritual death is not Biblical". One is an estimation on your part, the other is a contention or assertion, that is NOT supported by your estimation or definition soley. therein lies your problem.You have now moved forward by giving us a tenative definition of Biblical, "in accord with the Bible", your mistake however, and its a logical error, is making this statement about Biblical, then assuming you have a right to limit the definition and understanding of Spiritual death to a few books, when in fact in the common usage of the term, it would include numerous other books again you are commiting a logical error, given your definition of Biblical. your estimation here and overall would not support the "in accord with the Bible", concept of death, Spiritual or otherwise. why not try taking a look at all the biblical perspective, unless you want to admit you dont believe the rest is from God. Now that is some good advice. I tell you what I will do, Ill embrace the simple meaning, which I already said I do, IF, IF, you will agree to embrace the WHOLE of the BIBLICAL record on the teaching about death, in both the Old and the New. Agreed?So now your desire is to limit the word Biblical to a single verse. Word study is very essential, but the text, context and entirity of the biblical teaching will clarify exacally what God means by death. The quote above does not take this application of exegesis into account, or atleast it appears not to. the simple reading of the text provided, as you put it, is not all the Biblical record has to say about death, its only one application here again you seem to be implying non importance to later theology, assuming or insinuating that the previous is the only one that can be trusted. Am I correct?Again a simple question. Is the torah, Prophets, Old Testament or New testament the Word of God in your estimation and in your view? The Torah and the prophets are not the plain text of "THE ENTIRE BIBLE", also to extend this principle to include the topic or contention that Spiritual death is not Biblical, is something quite different. at this point you move past what a group of people believed in a few books or what the plain text of a few books state, to include material that does not support your positon on death, but which you refuse to acknowledge or incoorperate.You can talk about whatever topic you want from any or afew books of the Bible and pretend that thats all it has to say and then pretend this is a valid way to proceed, but no thinking person would adopt such a methodat this point you may wish to either have me ejected or bring in a moderator. Anyway see you in the morningEAMEdited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

PD writes:These paragraphs and this exegesis would be very good, except it is built on a faulty premise and that faulty premise is in line one of the second paragraph:"the ANSWER DEPENDS on whether the people of the time FELT the Spirit could die"You kidding right, I thought it would be what the totality of the Biblical account would be that determined what the definition of Spiritual death would be.As I told you before, you are looking at things from a Human perspective. The rest of the paragraphs are therefore, of no effect, since you use the human perspective to decide whether the Spirit can die.let me elaborate, however. You are exacally correct in assuming that the meaning includes physical death. one certainly would come away with that estimation. But, and thats a big Butt, as we move through the scriptures we begin to see something else emerge a concept of the afterlife, the expansion and explanation or the soul and Spirit and finally the fact that the soul or Spirit is more than the body and that it will go on forever., ie"what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what shall he give in exchange for his soul"Now these words would have no meaning if we are dead like rover, dead all over.You may be absolutley correct, these people may have had a limited knowledge of what was involved in the matters of Soul and death, but gladly we have the entire Biblical account to clear up any confusion.I still think that using just the Old testament though, your estimation is still incorrect and one could come away with an idea of soul apart from body and a type of death other than physical, that is a separation aspect and thats just using the Old testament.Lets stick with the Adam and Eve scenerio for a minute. Since they didnt die, we may assume they would have lived forever, had they not eaten. This is a reasonable conclusion from the text. Now this item alone demonstrates that man being created in Gods image possess the ability to go on forever, unless sin gets in the way and blocks the avenue. The text indicates this, whether you believe the body and soul are one or not. this alone demonstrates that mans soul is more than breath, that is, there is something that cant simply disappear.Even if God changed his mind, they eventually did die physically, which implies that they would not have, had they not eaten of the fruit. So the conclusion from the plain text is that they would have lived forever physically, which demonstrates that man has the potential to be immmortal, even physically, correct?Question, if they had not eaten would they have lived forever? That is if we are going to go by what the plain text indicates.A 'spiritual death' or separation is indicated by the fact that God removed this IMMORTAL PHYSICAL status and placed a condemnation on them from an earthly aspect as well. Now watch this, even if death is extinction (I dont believe it is)the immortal physical aspect of thier exisistence, IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD was removed, that is they began to die physically, this alone is a type of Spiritual Death, Something was lost that they previously hadConclusion, from this passage alone we can determine that death is more than physical, because the immortal aspect was removed, which removes it from the physical status. Would you agree with this assesment?Fortunatley however, the rest of the Biblical record clarifies what might have been missing in anyones understanding., ie, that the soul even after physical death continues to exsist in some form, that experiences separation from God and eternal punishment. That is if we are going to consider the entire Biblical account.Even if you dont believe this aspect, there was still a spiritual death as described above So in the simple reading of the text, anyone listening to this statement made here and in other places about death would also understand that he is not really serious about death as a consequence to disobedience to his commands since Adam lived nearly 1000 years afterwards and nobody else that sins dies either.So how can the first time reader in this place and others come away with only the idea of physical death. If they did not die, what type of physical death is under consideration?Here is another question, if they had not eaten of thee tree of knowledge would they have lived forever? in other words was this breath of life as you describe it, initially eternal, that is what the plain reading of the text indicates, correct?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.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

PurpledawnOk I will quit asking questions that relate directly and indirectly to the assertions and contentions, per admins request. In the Christian world, this is a simple responsiblity in debate if your are going to formulate a solid propositon for debate and be responsible for your arguments, assertions and contentions, you seem to think it is not. Ill play by your less than rational way of proceeding. Enough saidThe two trees existed in the Garden before and after the fall. Before the fall they had no need of the tree of life, because if they had not sinned they would not have died, immediatley or later. After the fall God recognized that because they are NOW in a position where they would need the tree again, they may attempt to regain what they had lost, so he said,"let US go down and stop them , lest they put forth thier hand, eat of the tree of life and live forever"now notice they were NOT instructed to NOT eat of the tree of life before hand, because such a warning would have been senseless sense they were in an immortal state already, it was only after the fall that this exclaimation was pronounced. So the simple reader would be able to deduce this fact and your contention falls to the ground.this why the Apostle Paul speaks about the first and second Adam in the book of Romans, Christ gave us back what was lost in Adam, a DIRECT relationship with God and eternal life (John 3:16)So your other contention about them knowing about the tree also falls to the ground (no pun intended) The trees were there and aparently they did know, because God said let us go down and stop them. Why would he need to worry about it if they were unaware.To further demonstrate the faulty character of your point about the simple reader scnerio, I dont know ANYONE besides you that does not after a simple reading of the text come away with the idea that Adam and Eve were not ALREADY in an immortal state. I mean, isnt that the common understanding in the biblical world, that they were already It seems you are outwieghed by the majority of the world on this point, and by all the simple readersOne more thing. I have repeadley stated that it is sensless to keep bringing up what the readers perspective would involve compared to what Gods intended purpose are in relaying a message. What is this obssesion you have with the readers perspective. The readers perspective does not make or break Gods word.(EAM)Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writesThey did not have the same relationship. Before the fall God walked with Adam and Eve through the garden as HIMSELF, with no mediatorship. After the fall he would barely show himself to Moses in the mount.. The fact that God oversaw his world in the giving of sons and daughters, etc, etc, has nothing to do with the fact that FROM man to God, there was now a different set of circumstances. The rain falls on the just and the unjustThe law (Mosaic)and the Gentile law (Romans 2:14-16), anticipating the mediatorship of Christ allowed a certain amount of contact with God, but not a direct relationship of forgiveness, hence the statement,"blessed is the man to whom God does not imput sin."because, "without the sheding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.First this was done through the blood of Bulls and Goats, (ADAM NEEDED NO SACRIFICES before the fall because there was no sin. afterwards these sacrifices served as a mediator, but forgiveness was not complete, it was only rolled forward to the perfect sacrifice which removed the sins completley and forever,Hence the statement, "Whereby we cry Abba father"Christ restored what was lost in Adam.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes:With these two paragraphs it seems that we have reached a logical empass in our ability to find any common ground here and on the topic of spiritual death.. Your statements here are a bit unreasonable considering the plain and simple text. Nonetheless you seem to have a lively discussion going on with the others and I think I will bow out. As one fellow here puts its, "Thanks for the exchange"EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ok, I lied, maybe one more thing. Try and understand this from a simplistic standpoint. When a prisoner in is in prison or being punished, the State still has the responsibility to care for and preside over that individual. However, thier relationship to the state is different than those of others citizens. In this instance lets say that mans relationship was different than the angels that did not rebel. The good angels that had not sinned had a different relationship than man and the fallen angels, EVEN THOUGH GOD IS STILL PRESIDING OVER ALL OF US. Surely you can see this simple point of designation in relationship types.I dont mean to sound simplistic twords you, but you seem to be dodging a very simple point. Choose another word to describe A&E disobedience I t would not have if they had not sinned, or whatever other word you chooseEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

bailey --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Your not paying attention. I said choose another word for A&Es disobedience
Two wrongs dont make a right, unless you are prepared to say Adam and Eve did not share in the guilt. Although this is the much used attempt you have offered here to extricate them.
Was there no pronouncement of punishment for the other two? you stopped short, like most cherrie pickersEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes:I didnt say WARDEN, I said State, an overall authority. BTW, do you know Bailey?What possible difference could who created them have anything to do with anything. God responded to them exacally the same way a parent and offical of the State would have in this situation, because he both. You are very good at dodging a point but fortunatley I am better at recognizing a dodge.Sure he did all these things for them, but the point was 'paradise lost' (Perfect state of existence and immortality), and I have already demonstrated that point beyond any doubt, and a direct relationship that they had in the garden that they did not afterwards. I have already demonstrated this by the tree of knowledge and the tree of life both being present in the garden and the fact that Gopd did not instruct them to not eat of the tree of life, it would make no sense to impart an instructionof this nature.here is a simple example. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved he that believeth not shall be condemned"In an effort to avoid the force of baptism in the plan of salvation,Calvinist will often point out that Jesus said nothing about baptism in the second part of the verse. but why would he, the only proper candidate for baptism is one who believes. jesus would be redundant to repeat baptism as a part of condemnation, if you dont believe anyway, baptism would be inefectual for a non believer.In the same way, God would be redundant to instruct someone to NOT eat of a tree that would do nothing further for them, until after the fall when they needed it, once they lost what they hadEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.