Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

Hi Jazzns Archeology backs up Daniels claim. There is a babylonian cuniform tablet that reads in part:

quote:

---

He entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn [Belshazzar], the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him and, himself, he [Nabonidus] started out for a long journey, the (military) forces of Akkad marching with him; he turned towards Tema (deep) in the west. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 313

---

So this description of how Nabonidus put Belshazzar at the helm disproves critics claims that Belshazzar was not a king of Babylon. He was a co-ruler with his father thus he was in a kingly position and this makes him the king of Babylon. Nabonidus was unrelated by blood to Nebuchadnezzar thats true. But the only way he could have legally taken the throne was if he married into the royal family. Herodotus reported in the 5th century that the mother of the younger Labynetos (Nabonidus) was the queen Nitocris who is commonly thought to have been the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. This makes Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson by marriage and in patriachal societies, it was perfectly accurate to call him Nebuchadnezzars son. If you consider the slaughter of almost everyone in the city as a non violent take over, then i'm very surprised. If Herodotus of the 5th century said that Nabonidus was the ruler and did not mention Belshazzar, how could a later writer have known about Belshazzar? If Herodotus had known of Belshazzars rulership, then surely he would have named him as such...if he didnt, why do you think a later writer would have known of Belshazzar?remember, Archeology has backed up Belshazzars position as a king so we know he definately was ruling Babylon along with his aged father. This really adds weight to the bible as an historically accurate record of the past. It was more accurate then the famous and highly resprect Herodotus. is that speculation or do you have some references? Edited by Peg, : fix quote boxEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

spiritual. those who became christian made a conscious effort to desist from sinful works...works of flesh. this brought them to life spiritually. Eph. 2:1-3: It is you [Christians] God made alive though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience.Here are some more scriptures that show that people can be in a condition considered to be dead [b]Matt 8:22 "Jesus said to him: Keep following me, and let the dead bury their dead"
______________________________________________Colossians 2:13 "Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses"
_________________________________________________________1Peter 4:5But these people will render an account to the one ready to judge those living and those dead. 6In fact, for this purpose the good news was declared also to the dead"____________________________________________Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

I'm really glad you mention this passage in the New Testament context, it makes an excelllent example for use in discussing the reading vs the interpretation. You seem to be taking the position that the text isn't talking about Jesus preaching to the actual physically dead in his near future or contemporary age, but rather that it is a metaphor for his living audience's state of separation from God or "spiritual death".But is that the way the original audience and readers of the Gospel, unmediated by Augustine, Calvin and Billy Sunday, would have taken it? Here's the same doctrine again in another passage If the death is in the flesh, and the life is in the spirit, then where is the "spiritual death" in this story? Luckily Peter has already told us what his real context is What do you think this passage is saying in plain language? As opposed to what you might want it to mean from a modern perspective.What I'm really asking you is, where do you think Jesus was during those mysterious "three days" when he wasn't physically alive? What do you think he was doing? Do you somehow have the idea that he came back from Hades alone? The early church had a very firm opinion as to what these passages were talking about. Before the Gospel or even many of the Epistles were written, they already knew what they believed, and it wasn't some watered-down apologetics about Jimi Hendrix not feeling quite whole without a personal deity. Harrowing of Hell - Wikipedia

So? It also had a lot of history that has been proven incorrect, and it has a number of anachronisms in it. And, while there was a king named
Belshazzar, in Daniel Belshazzar is referenced as the son of King Neb, while according to the Babylonian records, he was the son of Nabonidus. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

Exactly what I said you have to do to make this right, change the definition of "king". Exactly as I predicted, you make this work by changing the definition of "son" and "father" as written by Daniel. IIRC the geneology from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus was even farther than that but that is somewhat irrelevant as Belshazzar is only the "son" and Nebuchadnezzar is only a "father" if you change those to mean something else. This is what I was talking about hiding behind fuzzy interpretations. I'll concede this point if I am given a reference because I'll admit that I haven't looked to deeply into this point. But I have read some history that claims that Cyrus did not in fact sack Babylon city itself. I could be rememebering that wrong I'll admit but I'll also note that you are not refuting me with a reference either. My rebuttal does not hinge on this point so I'll easily conceed if shown wrong. Why not? Your making a negative claim. You are claiming that a 2nd century Daniel could NOT have known about Belshazzar. That is a very high burden of proof in a period with a lot of room to speculate. This isn't even the strongest evidence for an early Daniel yet it is the one that a lot of apologists hang on to because there is a sliver of historical support with the discovery of the tablets mentioning Belshazzar. Making him by definition NOT a king. That is why you change the definition. Well, there are a bunch of other things that Daniel got wrong that apologists like to dance around. I just wanted to address your Belshazzar claim. You conviently ignored my main point which is that you cannot prove that a 2nd century Daniel did not know about Belshazzar.Overall, the argument for the origins of Daniel are very complex but if you take the weight of the evidence for an early dating and compare it to the weight of the evidence for a late dating, I believe that any objective observer would conclude that it was most certainly written late. If you want to discuss this in more detail perhaps we should take it to a different thread. I'll try to re-find my references to the Babylonian lineage that I mentioned in my previous post. Edited by Jazzns, : mixing up early vs late when talkin' all historical and suchEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I think that this is how the apostle John meant it.You see John was the last to write a gospel. The church life had been damaged by attacks withint and without. I see John's commission to bring the Christians back to the beginning, back to the basics, back to the most fundamental aspects of their life with Jesus.In essence "Brothers we have to remember that before we meet Jesus we were spiritually dead. He is life. Our spiritual life began with Jesus. He brought us forth from this spiritual death we were in."My opinion is that much of the teaching of Jesus which John recalled he purposefully selected to convey this matter that Christ is the divine life which saved His believers from death of all kinds, especially the deadness towards God deep in the sinners.Peter was a caster of the Gospel net. John was a mender of the Gospel net. His job was to repair and restore and to mend the basics of the Gospel. "That which we have heard from the beginning concerning the Word of life."I hear what you are saying. But before Augustine, Calvin, and Billy Sunday there was the Holy Spirit. I think some of the hearers of the words of Jesus understood that without Christ they essentially had nothing - zero. They were as good as dead.They may not have been able to write the theological treatise of a Calvin or an Augustine. I do think some were convicted by the words and by Spirit of God that they needed Jesus as life. Without Him they were dead.I am not sure it is a matter of intellectual sophistication. It may be more of a matter of humility.Now you refer to a passage which I at least, have not used in this discussion. Allow me to return to these passages latter. It is a good point which I am not completely unfamiliar with.But I need time to look at the issues again. As Matthew reports I believe that some others resurrected with Jesus.Interesting though how Matthew stays with his burden and only lightly touches what he might have viewed as a distraction.This is unlike most of us who are itching to have our curiosity tickled. It is amazing to me that Matthew told us only the briefest mention of this event.While I work on your issue in Peter's writing I remind you.John says that the believers who love one another have passed out of death and into life: I do not think we need Augustine, Calvin, or Billy Sunday to understand that these believers had not yet expired. So this passing out of DEATH into (ZOE) life must be a spiritual matter.And the "is dead while living" of First Timothy 5:6 is also a matter of spiritual life and death: Give me some time to study this matter.ThanksEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

PUrpleDawn writes:

​

Maybe if you stop using the word dead, when you aren't really talking about physical death we can understand what you're really talking about.

​

I don't know what you mean, if I would stop using it. I entered into the discussion and used it.

​

The Bible uses it. Jesus used it. The apostle Paul used it. If Jesus didn't want to say "the DEAD shall hear the voice of the Son of God ..." then He would have said something else.

---

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

I know there are many creative ways to use the words death, die, died, etc. In the OT, the verses shared were actually referring to physical death, IIRC.
If one is attempting to show that these words have been used figuratively, then one needs to explain the usage without using the word in the same way. So stop using the word dead figuratively and actually say what you're talking about.

​

If you are asking me to hide the truth of spiritual death as anywhere revealed in the Bible, I do not intend to do that.

---

If you are unable to restate in non-figurative language what is stated in figurative language, there is no way for a reader to understand how you understand the figurative language.

quote:

---

Perhaps what the New Testament calls enlightenment you dismiss simply as "creative" writing.

---

Statements like this tell me you either don't really understand figurative language or you don't want to discuss Paul seriously.

quote:

---

If you do not understand something in the Bible, you should not fight against it. At most you put it on the back burner until you gain more understanding.

---

The phrase spiritual death is not in the Bible. You have yet to define what spiritual in the phrase is referring to. Augustine seems to be referring to disposition when referring to the nature of man. No, that doesn't mean that every use of the word spirit refers to disposition.

quote:

---

That is right that I have not yet labored on a rigorous definition of spiritual death.

​

I do not think it is really that necessary to prove that a concept of death distinct from the stopping of the physical heart, is refered to in the Bible.

​

A rigorous definition of spiritual death, I don't think is needed, to point out that you jump the gun to announce "Spiritual Death is not Biblical".

---

A definition is needed to support your position that I've jumped the gun.

quote:

---

When Paul writes:

​

"But she who gives herself to pleasure is dead while living" (1 Tim. 5:6)

​

do you think he is not refering to "spiritual death" ?

​

Do you wish to dismiss this as just some "creative writing". It may depend on how seriously you take the apostles exhortation. He is speaking about unruly Christian sisters in the church life who instead of giving themselves to hope in God are consummed with being given over to pleasures.

​

In principle that same thing refers to the Christian brothers. Now here in this passage is one of the issues of definition. I believe he is talking about people who have been regenerated. Their human spirit has been quickened with the Holy Spirit. Yet their minds are set on the old nature, the fallen flesh. Remember Paul wrote:

​

"The mind set on the flesh is DEATH, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace" (Rom.8:6)

​

I sympathize with you somewhat if you find this confusing. But when I see you fight against the teaching, my sympathy turns into caution because you are not humble to receive the Bible's utterances.

​

If you do not see in these passages a "spiritual death" and more importantly a spiritual divine life, it may be that someday you will appreciate it.

---

"Dead while living" is figurative language. Your explanation of the verse shows that "dead" refers to immorality or wrong behavior, which is what I've said before concerning Paul's figurative use of the word dead or death.Since you have no definition for spiritual death, how can you say that the words translated as dead or die refer to spiritual death?In Paul's letters, the word pneumatikos is translated as spiritual. So Paul did have a word to use if he meant spiritual. The concept of the rational soul is a Greek concept that is not in the OT. Even though your usage of the phrase depicts those whose disposition is immoral, you disagree that the phrase has that meaning. Without a definition as common ground, our discussion won't progress.

quote:

---

I sympathize with you somewhat if you find this confusing. But when I see you fight against the teaching, my sympathy turns into caution because you are not humble to receive the Bible's utterances.

---

I find it fascinating that looking at the simple reading of the Bible writings is considered as not receiving the Bible's utterances, when what I'm actually battling is post Biblical teachings; not what the Bible says.

quote:

---

You are right that you could be given more backround. Did you know that the human soul and the human spirit can be divided from each other?

---

Do you remember that my contention deals with the OT/Jewish Bible? I've already shown that the NT was influenced by the Greek Philosophers.

quote:

---

And this living word of God can DIVIDE the human soul from the human spirit right within the person.

---

I think this is your own concoction.From your usage, you consider spirit (pneuma) in the NT to refer to the rational soul or mental disposition.Now explain why the words translated as death/dead/die in the OT or the NT (figurative or not) now reflects spiritual death (sinful nature or wrong disposition) as opposed to actual wrong behavior?Need a definition of spiritual death, otherwise we go in circles.

---

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

Hi Peg, The Hebrew word for man is transliterated adam. The primary definition of the original Hebrew word is: From Strongs #H120.1) man, mankinda) man, human beingb) man, mankindThat means you are an Adam.
That means I am an adam. God created Adam male and female in His image. If Adam is any man or woman who has ever lived on the face of the earth, why do you keep refering to a particular man as Adam?It doesn't.God = Jehovah = "the existing One" Thus God is an eternal Spiritual being.In Genesis 1:26 God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness.We are made in the image/likeness of God. Therefore if God is the "eternal existing one" then we have an eternal spirit.You do believe that God is eternal don't you? Do I have to prove Satan is a spirit? Since Satan is a spirit and he will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire he has to be eternal.
Therefore I conclude he is an eternal spirit. The inanimate image object that Satan gave life, spirit (pneuma) to that was then able to kill people who did not bow and worship the image.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi jaywill, I don't have to think because John tell's me himself. Everyone who has not been born again is already dead as they are under the penalty of the second death. John declares those who have not believed ( 1. to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in a) of the thing believed 1. to credit, have confidence) the only begotten Son of God is CONDEMNED ALREADY. Therefore he is dead.I have two questions for you and I will answer both. If you disagree you can give your answer.1) Will the physical body we have die? Yes, Thus we have physical death.2) Will a Spirit die? No all spirits are eternal. Thus there can be no spiritual death.There can be and is the second death which is eternal separation from God in a lake of fire where those there are tormented for eternity. Those who have been born again are not now or ever will be under the penalty of the second death. Glory to God.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This passage I think refers to the physically living and the physically dead - "the living and the dead". This corresponds to: "the Judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42)
"Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead ..." (2 Tim. 4:1) If I follow you you are saying that since the contrast here is between the physically living and the physically dead then what possible room is there for the physically living to be "spiritually dead"?Physical death is refered to. Living in the spirit means not living according to the Adamic fallen nature. I do not think that (1 Peter 4:6) is an exact continuation of Peter's thought in 1 Pet. 3:19.First Peter 3:18,19 - "For Christ ... being put to death in the flesh, but on the other, made alive in the Spirit in which also He went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, who had formerly disobeyed when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, ..."These spirits in prison are angelic beings who attempted to derange the human race in days of Noah. A long discussion on this I will not attempt to write now. And I realize that different teachers have different views on the problematic passage.Today, I feel that Christ announced, "proclaimed" to imprisioned evil spirits the victory achieved by God, that is, that through Christ's death on the cross God destroyed Satan and his power of darkness (Heb. 2:124; Col. 2:15). This was not a "preaching" of good news that these imprisoned spiritual beings might be saved. It Christ's declaration to them, while He was in death's realm, that they and their leader Satan had been defeated by Christ.A longer defense of this view I will not write now. I think Peter is saying in brief that when Jesus Christ died on the cross in His divinity He was made strong and not weak. And in that strength He proclaimed His victory over the fallen angels. These particular fallen angels did something so heineous that they are not allowed to roam the earth's atmosphere or heavenlies. They were imprisioned in particularly dark and low prisons. Like the maximum security's isolation unit they were so bad that they were shut up in the lowest realms for dead beings.Christ went there and announced His victory over them. - "Christ ... one the one hand put to death in the flesh, but on the other, made alive in Spirit; in which also He went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison."This is a brief word on a difficult passage. You may scrutinize it. But it is a cursory comment of a contraversial verse. Jesus was in Hades the realm of the dead. While there He was not weak but strong to even go to a region way, way lower where particularly evil angels of Satan were imprisoned. And there though His human part had been killed, strongly in His divine essence, He announced the victory of His death over these spirits in prison.That is one of the things He did while during those three days. When He resurrected physically, Matthew says some Old Testament believers rose with Him.Now we come to that matter of First Peter 4:5,6The dead of this passage means Christians who died. When they were physcially alive the Gospel was preached to them:The Recovery Version renders verse 6 - "For unto this [end] the gospel was announced also to [those who are now] dead, that they might be judged in the flesh according to men but live in the spirit according to God.The dead, ie. [those who are now] dead, refers to physically dead believers in Christ, who suffered persecution because of their Christian testimony, as refered to in 1:6; 2:18-21; 3:16-17; and 4:12-19.Now this next point is crucial, so pay attention. Consistent with Peter's entire attitude in his epistle this persecution was considered by Peter as GOD'S JUDGMENT.The whole of human existence involves God's judgment upon man (Psalm 90:1-12). Peter is teaching about this judgment of God and how God uses it to steer history to His eternal kingdom and the building up of His living house.To Peter "... the judgment to begin at the house of God" (1 Pet. 4:17). God has a government in which He desires that man would live by Christ a righteous life. Trials, persecutions, troubles, sufferings are all part of God's governmental discipline over mankind to steer them into this righteous and dependent life on God for the building up of His living house.Yes, the believer may be SAVED from damnation. She or he will not be judged by God as to eternal perdition. But God's purpose is not simply that man would be forgiven and saved from perdition. He has a government and a kingdom in which man is to live righteously. Few of us who come to Christ do that on our own initiative.Therefore trials, persecutions, sufferings, and even physical death are viewed by Peter as God's judgments disciplining His people to live as Christ lived, in Christ and by Christ Who is within them.So Peter is saying that the gospel was preached to some dead believers in Christ while they were physically living, that they might, on the one hand, be judged, dealt with, by God in the flesh according to men through opposers' persecution, but, on the other hand, live in their regenerated human spirit according to God by believing in Christ.This shows how strict and serious is the judgment of God in His governmental administration, If believers in Jesus, who have been obedient to the gospel, are dealt with by God's governmental judgment, how much more will those who oppose the gospel and slander the believers be judged by God's dealing (vv. 17-18): As Matthew reports I believe that some others resurrected with Jesus.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi Iblis, Jesus was at the same place the thief that died on the cross beside Him. For He told him "today shalt thou be with me in paradise".

quote:

---

Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

---

It happened to be the same place Abraham was at that the rich man in hell called out to to let Lazraus fetch a drop of water to cool his parched tongue.

quote:

---

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

---

Jesus announced the Messiah has come and died for the sins of the world.He set the captive free as when He ascended to heaven he took those who had been in paradise with Him.

quote:

---

Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

---

Thus came to pass. Glory to God all those who are born again are passed from death unto life eternal through Jesus Christ.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Daniel didn't predict the violent overthrow of Babylon, just that Belshazzar would be killed. Isaiah did though and he was wrong. Cyrus did battle the Babylonians but he took the city of Babylon without a fight. Both the Cyrus Cylinder and Chronicle of Nabonidus describe this. What Daniel got wrong was the who. Daniel says it was Darius when it was actually Cyrus. Darious came later, likely after Daniel's death, and was not a Mede. Daniel was probably trying to square with Isaiah who claimed that Babylon would fall to the Medes.With respect to Balshazzar being known in the 2nd century, he is supposidly referenced in the Book of Baruch which is a Maccabean writing. This gets more interesting as you get deeper so I'll look forward to continuing if you want to in a new thread. I'll join you if you create it, taking that as a sign that you are intersted. If you want me to start it let me know. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I already gave you the Ezekiel passages about a heart of stone being replaced by a heart of flesh.A heart of stone implies a dead and unresponsive non living heart. A heart of flesh in the word picture represents a living heart. The phrase spiritual death is not used. The word picture indicates that within the living flesh is a stone heart. This is a psychological and spiritual heart. The word picture of taking out the heart of stone and placing in the flesh a corresponding HEART of flesh surely indicates a living heart to match the living flesh.In Old Testament allegory spiritual life and spiritual death are portrayed in this passage.Furthermore the Spirit of God is strongly associated with raising from the dead as is seen in the immediately following chapter 37. The vision of the dry bones being brought to life by the Spirit of God reinforces the concept of the living God bringing man to life spiritually and physically: Spiritual death verses spiritual life in chapter 36.
Physical death verses physical life in chapter 37.Where in plain words in the OT is it taught that spiritual death does not exist? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Wouldn't part of the appeal for using this phrase be the fact that it's a way of getting back behind our logical faculties and making an emotionally compelling argument? We can talk about alienation or bad tendencies or lack of self-control all day long without really waking up our audience, but when we start crooning about "speerachool DAYUTH" we can get them foaming pretty quick.We don't mind being "depressed" or even "imbalanced" if that's what it takes to get the dope we want from the monopolistic psychiatry / insurance / pharmaceuticals cartel; but we don't want to be DEAD. We fear the very mention of, you know, "passing on", the same way we fear snakes and spiders and things that go *bump* in the night. It activates our fight-or-flight response, marginalizes our critical thinking, and makes us easy marks for snake-oil salesmen and cult recruiters.If Sun-Myung Moon's followers were to come up to us talking about "spiritual death" we might well say No Thanks Man and go on about our business. Why shouldn't we do the same thing when it's one of Billy Graham's converts?Edited by Iblis, : titleEdited by Iblis, : goety

such as? It was quite normal for a son to take the name of the patriachal head of the family. In the case of Belshazzar, his patriachal head was nebudchadnezza.Jesus was called the 'son of David'King david lived centuries before but Jesus was still called his son because of being in the family line of King David who was a patriachal head of his family.The 12 tribes of Isreal are named after the patriachal father. If you were born into the tribe of Judah, you were a son of Judah. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic