Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

A long long time ago in a Galaxy far far away purpledawn writes:it took a while but you finally got around to answering my fundamental questions. when you do make it back home, Ill talk to you back at the house. thanks againEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Purpledawn writes:Sorry if I offended here, but it seems all I can do is ASSUME with you, i have no other options when the discussion reaches a certain point. Im chuckling while I am writing this because you dont seem to undrstand how argumentation works. Yes, your personal beliefs are irrelevant up to a certain point, sorry I didnt make that clearer.But I am sure you can see that who wrote it is of the utmost importance at a certain point in the discusssion. Otherwise you are simply bandying back and forth about what a bunch of people believed in this time or that time. Now, this first line here in your above comment I have heard many times in my lifetime and I am sure everyother guy on this website has as well. It really hasnt changed since time everlasting, thats funny.I am probably ignorant of many things, but I am not ignorant of how argumentation should progress,but I guess I will give it a shot, still chuckling, in a non-discourteous way, trust me. Im having flash backs here. I believe the correct response is, yes dear, I will try and do better.Where did we leave off?EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

To summarize. Your contention has been that the plain and simple reading of the text (in this instance Genesis) does not teach and will not allow the concept of Spiritual death, that is simply from the text. You have lost this debate for the followong reasons.1. The plain and simple text, written in the third person or otheriwse, states clearly that there were two SPECIFIC trees IN the garden. Notice now, it does not say THEY DID NOT KNOW OF eithers existence, YOU HAVE TO READ THIS INTO THE TEXT, which is an addition to the PLAIN AND SIMPLE TEXT. Your addition.2. God specifically tells them thay may EAT OF EVERY TREE IN THE GARDEN EXCEPT ONE. Now notice, IT IS YOUR ADDITION AND ASSUMPTION THAT THEY DID NOT EAT. You AGAIN are reading this into the text, something that is not there. Your addition.3. Since it is not necessary to read the above things into the text as you have, it is more reasonable to accept the text as it is, which demonstrates the conclusion of immortality initially. It is actually yourself that is violating your own principle of exegesis. Try the text without YOUR ADDITITONS and assumptions, then see what conclusion you come to.4. Why did Satan Not tempt them with the TOL, becuase he knew it would do nothing more that that which they already possessed. Better to tempt them with something they did not possess. Remember, at this point it is necessary for you to ASSUME they did not know of its existence, SOMETHING THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TEXT will not ALLOW YOU. But by all means, assume away5. God had no reason to be concerned before hand because they were allowed and endowed with the trees capabilities in the first place.6. The word die in its simplest form simply means cessation of something, what it refers to will be determined by the context. Even if it refers to physical death in this context, the context and its collective evidence)is teaching that they began to die progressively from a state of immortality, which is in essence Spiritual death. The text and other inspired writings will make it even clearer what is involved.Conclusion: The plain and simple text refers more to these ideas than they do to the ones you have reached by the insertion of gross misaprehensions and assumptions, ones the TEXT DOES NOT STATE AND WILL NOT PERMIT.To put it PLAIN AND SIMPLY you lose this debate, (no pun intended)Try taking a closer look at who is actually adding and coming up with assumptions to fit thier theory. My guess because of the above reasons, it is yourself.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Please tell me that no one is as simple and ignorant as you are pretending. I ofcourse am using ignorant in a technical senseOfcourse the word will refer commonly to physical death and as I pointed out, in the text, it does not matter if it is refering to physical death. The text is implying that they were or had immortality in this regard in the first place. So go with your strict interpretation it does not help your cause I agree, if you going to be stubborn, evasive and bury your head in the sand. The tree of life, immortality and the such like, change the meaning of the word to creative and expanded in its very context.The word die in the context is the least of your problems. you have now offered TWO nonsense ASSUMPTIONS, Location of, and consumption of the tree of life. There is absolutley no need to make these assumptions, yet it is necesary to make your contention work. Comical at best. First you say its my addition, then turn right around in the second part of your paragraph and offer the SAME assumptions that propel your nonsensical contention. Wake up.Now watch this, if we dont have that INFORMATION, then there is certainly no need to move in the opposite direction as your assumptions would take us, correct?The simplest and BEST CONCCLUSION is that they did know because he said they were there and told them they could eat of every tree but one(no reason to assume otherwise) and that they did eat,because he said they could, (no reason to assume otherwise)according to your own interpretation methods. its only when you start assuming that conflict comes into the picture.Now wouldnt you say that we should go with the YES and not the NO that they were aware of these things, that is, Now watch, using your strict method of exegesis. Quit assuming, its not necessary and it violates your own principles Only if you have your head buried in the sand
Humor is a crutch, you really dont take defeat well do you. Ive lost a few in my time too, be a big person. Here I simply mean that either position is possible, but ONE is more reasonable than the other without assumption Even if, thats the least of your problems in defending your positon. I have demonstrated now that even if it does, that immortality is MORE than a reasonble conclusion and that there are other factors to consider in coning to a reasonable conclusion. I dont mind the discourteous comment, because debate often becomes heated, but the dishonest comment demonstrates a low life quality in your character. Now, since you have now called me a liar basically, I suppose you are prepared to demonstrate that from any comment I have made, that I am dishonest. If not, watch your filthy mouth.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I suppose when you have no way to respond to arguments that controvert your posotions, this is what you offer. However, that is pretty funny though Ive never seen that one before Your evasion tactics only get more comical. Please explain to everyone here why your blatant comments that they did not know of its existence, possibly, or that they may not have eaten, possibly should, not be considered as ASSUMPTIONS. Here it it is from the dictionary, Albert Pay close attention to 1 and 5, they fit you well. Because it is necessary to refute the nearly Satanic proposition and contention you have advanced in this connection. Secondly, to take you down a few notches. Sometimes people formulate theories before they have examined them closely or considered them through to thier logical conclusions and consequences. This seems to be the case with regards to contentions you have made in in Genesis and considering Spiritual death. Remember you did not say Spiritual death MAY NOT BE BIBLICAL. You said Spiritual death IS NOT Biblical.We are all here to learn and I think you have learned some valuable argumentation priciples. Take them and use them in your next confrontation. Free of charge, ofcourse. Just remember, all positons have direct and indirect implications and consequencesDo you honestly believe that minds much greater than yours and mine have not considered all the information involved before coming to such conclusions that I have intimated in this post?Strawman, thats funny. Now if, "I only had a brain" Oh well, yeah, now I see the difference, your kidding right. Again please point out where I have been dishonest in my style. Not once have I done this, please point it out Potato is what I say, Potaaaatoe is what you say. have fun PurpleDeeeeeEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I removed my last post, I was just thinking out loud, sorry for the interruption Jaywill, please continue, I am glad to see you revived this topic.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I removed my last post it was out of context, sorry for the interuption, glad to see you revived this topic.EAM

To Jaywill PD writes:PD quotes and follows this principle.Dont mean to interupt here just a quick question. You insist for the plain and simple reading and interpretation of the text which is fine.However, a couple of points and questions. You and I started this discussion and you have insisted that the death spoken of in the Gen text is physical only, correct? yet you speak and write and imply that Pauls words are to be taken creatively, that he speaks about death as an illustration of disobdience, what gives you that right. What gives you the right to interpret Pauls words about sin and death, specifically death in some other fashion besides physical. You seem to be violating the plain and simple meaning of Paul in the statement.IOW, whether Paul is talking about Physical death or spiritual, what right do you have to make his words a creative sense of disobedience.Here is another way you violate your own principles and the plain and simple reading of the text. Paul says plainly that sin and death entered the world by one man, sin being disobedience and death as at least physical (even if you do not believe it is spiritual), because you have no right according to your own principles to insist otherwise.Yet you insist that God commuted this sentence, the sentence of PHYSICAL DEATH, which indirectly implies you believe it WAS physical death, BUT NOW WATCH THIS, the commute is no where STATED IN THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TEXT. Where do you get the lisence (given your method of interpretation) to insist the sentence of death was commuted, it is not stated directly in the text, you have to ASSUME this, not knowing if some sort of death, either progressivley physically or spiritual death had not actually had taken place. your reading into the plain and simple text, are you not.You dont seem to go by your own principles of interpretationEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

ICANT writes:Given your position on this topic, could you explain what the expression, "Follow me and let the dead bury the dead" and "they are dead while they yet liveth", means, if it is not speaking about spiritual things.here is what I mean specifically. God the Bible, bible related topics, issues and doctrines and teachings are all about spiritual matters.Jesus said in John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you they are SPIRIT and they are LIFE."So as in the above verses, to not follow Christ or his teaching would be to be spiritually dead, in every sense of the word. In other words to argue that there is no spiritual death because a spirit cannot go out of existence would be a matter of semantics, correct?Further what verses would you use to suggest that a spirit cannot go out of existence? Would this not imply that all spirits are immortal along with God himself? If they are not, would it not suggest that they could go out of existence if they were brought into existence inthe first place. Hebrews suggests that God is the "father or all spirits"Just a few thoughts here dont mean to interupt your ongoing discussion and if you have already addressed these questions simply point me to that postEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Thanks for your response, you really didnt answer my questions directly but I will not clutter up the discussion, I am enjoying watching your, PDs and Jaywills comments. Shhhhhhh. Did you read your email
\EAM