Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

quote:

---

I didnt realize you didnt take God serious in the first place.

​

After all the arguments I have presented we are asked to believe the conclusion that God ran around through the Torah, prophets and Old testament, saying:

​

If you sin, you will DIE, No Im just kidding

​

The soul that sins it will die, No Im not serious

​

If you sin I will kill you, but you dont have to take me literally

​

If you break my commandments, I will put you to death physically, but dont worry I wont follow through with that anyway.

​

Since you are going to die anyway and you already know this, my comments would make no sense and the threats cannot be taken seriously.

---

No, that is not what you are asked to believe. I have corrected you on this point. Message 76I have asked that readers look at the simple reading of Genesis 2:17 and see that the word translated as die refers to physical death. The simple reading of the story also shows that God can show mercy. Christians do consider God to be merciful. To be merciful, God has to be able to change his mind when he feels the circumstances warrant mercy.Stating that God cannot or will not change his mind means that God is not merciful.The author of 2 Peter is addressing the return of Jesus and why he hadn't returned yet. People were losing faith that he would return. That verse doesn't support that God can't change his mind and show mercy.

---

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

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.

quote:

---

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 again

---

No, my first post on EVC in 2004 does not answer your question concerning the text of the Bible. Message 11I answered your "fundamental" question when you first asked it, you just didn't like the option I picked from your list of choices.You have a habit of assuming. You have now made an assumption concerning my personal belief system that you feel makes me unworthy of your debating attention. That's why I said my personal beliefs were irrelevant. You have a tendency to bailout of a discussion by intimating that you have more knowledge and the person just isn't going to understand.If that's the excuse you need to justify leaving the discussion, that's fine, but know this. In this discussion you have shown your ignorance concerning forms of Bible interpretation and your inability to comprehend simple Bible reading. Your debating style is discourteous and dishonest. You have not been able to analyze the simple text apart from dogma and tradition.You have divulged more concerning this topic than you know. Thanks for the debate.Try to improve your style and don't dismiss others so easily because of what you "think" they believe.

---

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

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.

Permit me to step in here and offer something.THe Bible DOES teach spiritual death and that is the kind of death that Adam and Eve experienced on the day they sinned. On that day they sinned against God and God separated them from the garden of Eden and from His visible presence in the world. Separation from God is death; spiritual death.Paul in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"And.. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Paul in I Corinthians 15:22.The New Testament agrees with Moses that death began with Adam. But it could be said that Adam BEGAN to die in the physical sense on the day he disobeyed God. But when God's Spirit left them they died spiritually.The matter of spiritual death is proven in Ephesians and Colossians by Paul:Colossians 2:13 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses".Ephesians 2:1 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."Ephesians 2:5 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ".So it is clear that all who are born into this world, while born physically alive are spiritually dead...as inherited from Adam & Eve. Those who accept Christ by God's grace are given spiritual life and peace.Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."Best wishes to all. [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/christ_on_cross_th.jpg[/thumb=200]

quote:

---

THe Bible DOES teach spiritual death and that is the kind of death that Adam and Eve experienced on the day they sinned. On that day they sinned against God and God separated them from the garden of Eden and from His visible presence in the world. Separation from God is death; spiritual death.

---

What kind of separation from God? This discussion is looking at the simple reading of the text in the Jewish Bible. Please read Message 1.
Also read Message 149

quote:

---

Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."

---

Here Paul just explained that he used the words life and death figuratively.Show me that the writer of Genesis 2:17 was using figurative speech.ABE: Where does the story tell us that mankind was removed from God's visible presence?Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

---

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

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.

Your intentional lack of accuracy is getting tedious and wasting my time to continually correct your errors.

quote:

---

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.

---

The word translated as die in Genesis 2:17 refers to physical death. Message 29 There is no literary device used by the author to implicate any other meaning to the word translated as die. Message 142

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually it is your addition. My position is that we (the readers) don't have that information. Message 94, Message 138
We don't know if they knew about the tree of life and we don't know if they ate from the tree of life before being exiled. It isn't in the story.

quote:

---

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 away

---

The text without "my" additions and assumptions still doesn't speak of spiritual death. The word die is not used creatively.

quote:

---

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.

---

When referring to a living creature die means physical death. Message 29

quote:

---

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.

---

As I said before your debating style is discourteous and dishonest and your summary and conclusion are no exception. If it makes you happy to misrepresent my position and claim victory over a false position, then enjoy your imagined victory strawman.Edited by purpledawn, : Fix quote boxes

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

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.

Same song, second verse. A little bit louder and a little bit worse.Apparently you don't know what an assumption is either.You've already claimed victory, Strawman. Why are you still babbling the same old song?

quote:

---

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.

---

More comprehension problems. I didn't call you anything. I said your debating style was dishonest. You have continually misstated my position and misrepresented what I've said.Take your self proclaimed victory, Strawman. I'm through correcting your errors.

---

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

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.

Where does he use the word 'figurative'?If Jesus came to die on the cross to give us 'life'...was that 'life' figurative? No. It was eternal/spiritual life. That means that those of us who believe are saved from 'death'. Death is separation from God."We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." I John 3:14.This passing from death unto life happens when a person gives his heart to the Lord and accepts Christ as Savior. "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I John 5:12.A person who does not 'have life' is dead; but obviously it is not talking about physical life of the body, but spiritual life. A person who does not know the Lord personally is spiritually dead.This gives understanding of what Jesus told his disciples, "Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." 9:60.Spiritual death exists, unfortunately.Edited by Calypsis4, : corrections

Well - you have by now put forward your best argument to "refute the nearly Satanic proposition and contention". It seems clear the debate between you and PD has drawn to a natural terminus. I suggest you stay clear of this thread for the remainder of its life to avoid further unpleasantries.Of course - if you think you can civilly discuss the topic, rather than the person (and this applies to everybody in this thread - and on the board for that matter) then please continue. If you want to continue in the 'you misrepresented me' 'no- you called me a liar' metadebate - suspensions will follow.

My contention in the OP was that the Old Testament prophets and writers of the Torah do not present a concept of spiritual death. Unfortunately some participants prefer to argue the title of the thread instead of the actual argument presented.I wanted to see if this idea was present in the simple reading of the text, which is a basic mode of scripture interpretation. I use the Jewish terms because the OT is Jewish and we're looking at the Jewish Bible. The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat and from what I've read in the Christian counterparts to PaRDeS, Christianity agrees. So this means of interpretation is not something I've created.Genesis 2:17 is one verse where spiritual death is used to explain the lack of physical death in the story. The simple text does not present this meaning. By using other forms of scripture interpretation and applying current theology, a person can make a case for spiritual death; but it isn't in the simple reading of the text.I don't see a literary device being used by the author to give a different meaning to the word translated as die. No one has shown me that a literary device is being used to change the meaning of the word translated as die. I have seen other forms of interpretation along with current theology used to change the use of the word translated as die, but that doesn't change the simple reading.Other valid forms of scripture interpretation should never contradict the simple reading of the text.I never really got a clear explanation of spiritual death, other than it doesn't really deal with the concept of death, but with separation. No one has been clear if spiritual is referring to the actual spirit/soul or to the Holy Spirit. Both meanings have been given.Spiritual describes the type of "death"/separation. The OT writers didn't express any separation of the soul/spirit from the body before physical death or separation of the soul/spirit from God separate from the physical body.I know the theology of spiritual death surfaces after the OT. I'm not sure if it is supported by the NT writers or was developed even later than that.So far in this thread, I have not seen a clear indication of what spiritual death is or how the words translated as die or death in the simple reading of the text can refer to spiritual death without using another form of interpretation and current theology.So far my conclusion is that the phrase "spiritual death" does not replace the words translated as die or death in the simple reading of the texts views so far.

---

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

quote:

---

Spiritual death exists, unfortunately.

---

But where do the OT writers support that concept in the simple reading of the texts?

---

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