Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiritual Death is Not Biblical
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 106 of 281 (526220)
09-26-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by purpledawn
09-25-2009 8:09 AM


Re: Adam and Eve - Simple Reading
PD writes:
There is nothing in the story that states A&E did or didn't need the tree of life before they gained knowledge. We've become so accustomed to adding to the story, we miss the basic components. Adding to stories is what people do. They add to make it fit the current circumstances. But it is nice to just see what is really there.
The narrator tells us that both trees are in the Garden.
We know that A&E were allowed to eat from any tree except the tree of knowledge.
What we don't know is if A&E did eat from the tree of life or knew that it was a tree of life.
We also don't know if one only has to eat once from the tree and live forever or continue to eat from the tree to live forever.
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"
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 09-25-2009 8:09 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 107 of 281 (526229)
09-26-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peg
09-25-2009 7:55 PM


quote:
Spiritual death means to loose Gods favor. It is a condition of having no relationship with God, no understanding of God, no love for God.
A&E still had a relationship with God and they apparently had an understanding of God. Love isn't mentioned in the story and whether they lost God's favor or not isn't mentioned in the story.
In Ezekiel 37:9, the people still had an understanding of God, love isn't mentioned, and they did lose God's protection; but he is going to restore the nation.
This definition of spiritual death isn't consistent. It's a definition that can be mutated to fit any condition you want it to.
The story doesn't provide the answer to your "whys". The questions are from a later teaching.
God sent them away to keep them away from the tree of life. That is in the story.
What spiritual relationship did they enjoy? Where does the text cover this relationship?
quote:
Yes, they had introduced idol worship at the temple in Jerusalem
Ezekiel 37:9 While they were in exile, what in the text shows they didn't worship their God?
Ezekiel 36:37
"This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to the plea of the house of Israel and do this for them..."
quote:
thats true, the account speaks no more of them so anything we might add is only speculation. They are no more mentioned in the bible until the NT when Paul explains that Adam became a father giving death to all his offspring, whereas Jesus became a father giving life all those who excersize faith in him.
Paul is a later teaching.
quote:
So if you take that into consideration, the remembrance of Adams sin remains and therefore it is likely that Adam was never forgiven for his wrongdoing.
The A&E story is a foundational myth. It can be changed to accommodate various teachings. That is what Paul is doing.
quote:
no its not a later teaching. The idea is throughout the OT and it is developed through the messianic prophecies. Mankind was subjected to a sinful condition
Ps 51:5 Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains,
And in sin my mother conceived me
Original Sin is a later teaching.
Neither of the songs you quoted support Original Sin. Psalm 51 does not support that teaching. The song writer is speaking of himself. Show me that he is speaking of a theological belief affecting all and not just self depreciation. It's an individual lament.
Psalm 49 is a wisdom song. It deals with the question of the value of wealth, not Original Sin.
quote:
the spiritual part is in that they lost their relationship with God. Genesis does say they died ON THAT DAY...yet they didnt die physically on that day.
thats why i asked you what other way could they have died. Think about it and compare it with the rest of the OT and the way the isrealites were considered dead when they left God. Ezekeil is an attestation to this 'spiritual' death.
The people he gave his message to were not dead, yet he called them dead 'a pile of dead bones'
Spiritual death is the result of loosing favor with God. We loose favor with God when we act disobediently.
In the A&E story, the word die refers to physical death. It is not written in a way to view it any other way in the simple reading. Just because they didn't die physically doesn't mean they died another way. The story doesn't present another way.
quote:
Spiritual death is the result of loosing favor with God. We loose favor with God when we act disobediently.
And how does God's favor manifest itself in real life?
Does nothing go wrong for the believer?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 7:55 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-26-2009 12:34 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 108 of 281 (526259)
09-26-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by purpledawn
09-26-2009 10:33 AM


A&E still had a relationship with God and they apparently had an understanding of God. Love isn't mentioned in the story and whether they lost God's favor or not isn't mentioned in the story.
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.
Original sin is a later teaching.
Choose another word to describe A&E disobedience
And how does God's favor manifest itself in real life?
Does nothing go wrong for the believer?
I t would not have if they had not sinned, or whatever other word you choose
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2009 10:33 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2009 3:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 111 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 6:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 109 of 281 (526284)
09-26-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
09-26-2009 12:34 PM


Relationship
quote:
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.
The state didn't create the prisoner. The story says that God created Adam and Eve. That's a very different relationship than a warden. Yes it is very simple.
He created them, provided food for them, had one rule for them, disciplined them, and continued to watch over them. Very simple, but very different from a warden. Not a good analogy. A parent would be a better analogy.
How does that fit in with the notion of spiritual death? The definition is becoming weaker and weaker.
quote:
Choose another word to describe A&E disobedience
I didn't describe their disobedience as Original Sin. What Peg described seemed to be the concept of Original Sin.
quote:
I t would not have if they had not sinned, or whatever other word you choose
So your contention is that all mankind since the supposed time of A&E continues to suffer from spiritual death?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-26-2009 12:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-27-2009 3:26 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


(1)
Message 110 of 281 (526314)
09-26-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by purpledawn
09-25-2009 3:18 PM


The Soul that Sins Shall Die
Thanks for the exchange purpledawn.
I hope things are well with you ...
purpledawn writes:
I think we're still talking about Ezekiel 37:9 and the dead bones. You stated that they had left God spiritually.
Peg writes:
Ezekiel said that Isreal had become a pile of dead bones becauas they had been unfaithful to God....they were dead in Gods eyes because they left him spiritually. They still dwelt in the promised land, but they were not worshiping him, therefore they were 'spiritually' dead.
You're saying that by not worshiping God that they are spiritually dead. That is a different definition that what you have given before. I'm asking for clarification. Earlier you said it was the removal of the Holy Spirit.
What does the word spiritual in the phrase "spiritual death" refer to?
If it deals with worshiping practices, what in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshiping God?
For the record, the following opinion shouldn't necessarily imply that I'm in agreement with Peg's various and vague definitions of 'spiritual' death.
The following assesment may be considered an attempt towards evidencing that the Yisraleites were not worshiping the Father in a commendable fashion. Now, as I understand things, brutha Ezekiel lent his service to Yisraeli tribemen for roughly 22 years, from 592 to 570 BCE, during their Babylonian captivity.
There's the sense that, for some time before this stretch of captivity, during the later years of the monarchy their priesthood fell into a bit of a rut. They seem to have taken the Father's kindness for granted during this stretch, as if assuming that the Father's covenant with their forefathers was irrevocable.
This assumption apparently contained the notion that, the ownership of their land was permanent as long as 'God was in their midst' - an idea they seem to have come to think was occuring as long as the Yerusalem Temple stood in Yerusalem (ie. levitical catholicism's martial law - providing the Vatican stands, etc.).
I gather, at this point, that this widely held assumption led those within this specific tradition to believe that they were immune to any foreign captivity; an obvious farce. For, as we see - yet, to their bewilderment, the nation becomes exiled from that land to live in Babylonian captivity as Yerusalem is captured.
Ultimately, it seems they may have become bitter, cynical and a bit disillusioned. Perhaps they wondered - 'How could this have happened'? Is the Father impotent before Babylonian idols? Perhaps, the Father became busy and forgot about us? To these ones, brutha Ezekiel is called to bring the Father's message.
So then, I conclude this message was delivered to various practitioners that had been convinced - yet, much more so to a priesthood that was making every effort and had consciously chosen, while setting out deceiving others towards doing much the same, to rebel against the Father's notions of social justice.
quote:
Ezekiel 2:3
The Father said to me, Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Yisrael, to the rebellious nations who have rebelled against me;
Both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day
.
4 ~ The sons to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted - even stern of face and hard of heart, and you must say to them,
This is what the sovereign Father says
.’
These peculiar priests and particular practitioners are then repeatedly described as a rebellious house or a house of rebellion (2:5, 2:6, 2:8, etc.).
In otherwords, perhaps, a dead ol' pile o' bones ....
As Peg begins to mention in Message 102, the nasty habits of idolatry displayed and promoted by a good portion of the Yisraelite priests and their deceived practitioners seem to take the most prominent place in brutha Ezekiel's charge against the depraved. As a matter of fact, idols are mentioned more often throughout the booklet of Ezekiel - over fifty times, than in any other book of the common roman bible. Chapter eight goes on to describes the idol worship of Yisrael being openly promoted right in the temple by their very leaders - and supposed shepherds. At verse seventeen the Father asks the prophet ...
Do you see this, son of man? Is it is trivial matter for the house of Yuhdea to do detestable things they are doing here?
Are idols something other than the things we create to take care of our needs in an attempt to justify our own selfish desires (ie. my religion has some of the most fantastic blood magik tricks in the universe, and so, my perverse behavior is overlooked, while you burn in hell for your kindness, etc.)? Are they something other then artifacts, ideologies and notions intended to take care of our needs, self-created in an attempt to circumvent our dependency on the Father righteous discernment and provision (ie. my country has some of the most powerful and wealthy allies on the planet, while the military presence it has accumulated is fucking huge and unstoppable, and so, you'll never defeat me evildoer, etc.)? Is it any wonder why idol worship in Yisrael was always connected with their foreign alliances?
Chapter sixteen then goes on to describe Yisrael’s idolatry in the most graphic of terms.
quote:
Ezekiel 16:26
You engaged in prostitution with the Egyptians, your sexually aroused neighbors*, multiplying your promiscuity and provoking me to anger.
27 ~ So see here, I have stretched out my hand against you and cut off your rations.
I have delivered you into the power of those who hate you, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed by your obscene conduct
.
28 ~ You engaged in prostitution with the Assyrians because your sexual desires were insatiable;
You prostituted yourself with them and yet you were still not satisfied.
29 ~ Then you multiplied your promiscuity to the land of merchants, Babylonia*, but you were not satisfied there either.
30 ~ How sick is your heart, declares the sovereign Lord, when you perform all of these acts, the deeds of a bold prostitute.
31 ~ When you built your chamber at the head of every street and put up your pavilion in every public square,
You were not like a prostitute, because you scoffed at payment*
.
32 ~ You adulterous wife, who prefers strangers instead of her own husband!
33 ~ All prostitutes receive payment*, but instead you give gifts to every one of your lovers.
You bribe them to come to you from all around for your sexual favors!
34 ~ You were different from other prostitutes* because no one solicited you.
When you gave payment and no payment was given to you, you became the opposite!
35 ~ Therefore O' prostitute, hear the Father's word:
36 ~ This is what the sovereign Father says:
Because your wealth - even your lust, was poured out and your nakedness was uncovered in your prostitution with your lovers,
and because of all your detestable idols,
and because you have slaughtered your children as blood sacrifices to your gods,
37 ~ therefore, take note: I am about to gather all your lovers whom you enjoyed, both all those you loved and all those you hated.
I will gather them against you from all around, and I will expose your nakedness to them, and they will see all your nakedness*
.
38 ~ I will discern you as an adulteress and a murderer - as one who sheds blood, deserves*. I will avenge your bloody deeds with furious rage*.
39 ~ I will give you into their hands and they will destroy your chambers and tear down your pavilions.
They will strip you of your clothing and take your beautiful jewelry and leave you naked and bare
.
40 ~ They will summon a mob who will stone you and hack you in pieces with their swords.
41 ~ They will burn down your houses and execute judgments on you in front of many women.
Thus I will put a stop to your prostitution, and you will no longer give gifts to your clients*
.
42 ~ I will exhaust my rage on you, and then my fury will turn from you.
Then I will calm down and no longer be angry
.
What were these Yisraelites searching for, if not an easy way to make a living and to accomplish a certain sense of safety, as well as, security outside of the Father's parameters? Regardless, they found religious - or 'spiritual', bondage; which led them straight into captivity ... physical bondage. Instead of trusting the sensible way to accomplish their feats, they trusted their idols and met defeat because of their lack of, and disregard for, the Father's knowledge.
Didn't Hoshea say something about, 'My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests'?
As an aside, all the way throughout Ezekiel, the Father continually addresses the prophet as 'Son of man' and the phrase is employed within his booklet roughly eighty times; more than five times as often as all the other books within the Original Testaments combined. Curiously, Joshua the Anointed One also referred to himself as the Son of man quite often and this title of sorts actually dominates his self-reflective discussions, particularly in the booklet of John.
Also, considering how verse thirty relates to - especially the last portion of, verse thirty six above ...
It seems worth noting that, before Joshua the Anointed One was hunted down by certain religious dogmatics (Matisyahu 26:4; Mark 14:1; Luke 13:31, 22:2 ) and finally murdered by Caesar's ruthless militia as a result of the pleading on behalf of the ruling sects of Yuhdea, the ritual atonement killing of the Anointed One, apparently based on a legalistic regulation of the 'ToRaH of Moses', was instituted by the supposed prophet and certified high priest Yosef Bar Kayafa (John 11:48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53) as some sort of an alleged whole offering blood sacrifice, according to the witness of the common roman bible.
In the end, how sick were the hearts of Rome and Yuhdea, when they performed that act?
Anyway, brutha Ezekiel’s message isn't so different from his older contemporary, brutha Yirmiyahu and, likewise, Ezekiel and Yirmiyahu's messages are, both, not too terribly estranged from their predecessor, the prophet Isaiah. Actually, the first few verses of brutha Isaiah's booklet, beginning with the Father's lament regarding the tribal Yisraeli folk who had evolved towards theocratic monarchism, seem to provide a concise overview of Ezekiel's booklet ...
quote:
Isaiah 1:2
Listen, O heavens, pay attention, O earth! For the Father speaks:
I raised children, I brought them up, but they have rebelled against me!
!
3 ~ An ox recognizes its owner, a donkey recognizes where its owner puts its food; but Yisrael does not recognize me, my people do not understand.
Right after this, verses four, five and six begin to describe the unfortunate condition of that nation, which one may safely assume is either the direct result of a lack of the Father's knowledge, if not the utter disregard of that knowledge. Naturally, verses seven and eight progress to describe the Father's righteous discernment towards the Yisraelites nation state, based on their behavior. Then, verse nine begins to provide a certain message of hope and it's following verses effectively identify various practices that seem to repress that hope, while finally topping this treat with some savory admonition ...
quote:
Isaiah 1:9
If the armies - who are unable to disregard the Father*, had not left us a few survivors,
We would have quickly become like Sodom, we would have become like Gomorrah.
10 ~ Listen to the Father's word, you leaders of Sodom! Pay attention to our Father's rebuke, people of Gomorrah!
11 ~ Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices? says the Father.
I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want
.
12 ~ When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this — animals trampling on my courtyards?
13 ~ Do not bring any more meaningless - even worthless, offerings; I consider your incense detestable!
You observe new moon festivals, Sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate iniquity and sacred celebrations!
14 ~ I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
15 ~ When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way;
When you offer your many prayers, I do not listen, because your hands are covered with blood
.
16 ~ Wash! Cleanse yourselves! Remove your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong,
17 ~ Learn to do what is right! Promote justice! Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!
Take up the cause of the orphan! Defend the rights of the widow!
18 ~ Come, let us reason together and let’s consider your options, says the Father.
Though your sins have stained you like scarlet - as the color of blood, you can become white like snow;
Though they are as easy to see as a crimson red, you can become white like wool
.
19 ~ If you have a willing attitude and obey, then you will again eat the good crops of the land.
So then, not only is this a rather concise overview of brutha Isaiah's booklet, but it is also one that may easily be regarded towards brutha Ezekiel's booklet as well. The possible exception may be that Ezekiel's booklet adds another principle - the principle of individual responsibility (Ezekiel 18:20), which was also touched on by brutha Yirmiyahu (Yirmiyahu 31:30), as well as, by purpledawn - repeatedly, within this thread and others.
The prophets continually speak about a person’s responsibility, towards social justice, before the Father. Perhaps this is a form of positive worship?
Nevertheless, the one who stands before the Father will give account of our their life; not of the crunked up lives of others.
And so, mangod idle's aside, if the prophets gave a clue - it was that the soul that keeps a sinnin' ... it'll die.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by purpledawn, posted 09-25-2009 3:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2009 9:17 AM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


(1)
Message 111 of 281 (526317)
09-26-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
09-26-2009 12:34 PM


o.d.
Thanks for the exchange EMA.
Hope thigs are well ...
EMA writes:
purpledawn writes:
Original sin is a later teaching.
Choose another word to describe A&E disobedience
Original deception?
quote:
Genesis 2:13
Then the Father said to the woman, What is this you have done?
And the woman replied, The serpent deceived*, me, and I ate.
14 ~ So the Father said to the serpent, Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all the wild beasts and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl and dust you will eat all the days of your life
.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : added note

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-26-2009 12:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-27-2009 3:01 AM Bailey has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 112 of 281 (526320)
09-26-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by purpledawn
09-21-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Death
quote:
quote:
This is what I meant by "extinction." What is your evidence that the ancient Hebrews viewed death as you describe instead of as a "separation" of body from soul? How can you be sure that you are not reading a modern definition back into an ancient text? (We've seen from the usages of "sheol" that they did believe in continued existence with separation of body and soul after death.)
I addressed that in Message 38.
If you feel I am reading a modern definition back into an ancient text, then show me; don't ask me.
Sorry for the delayed reply--this has been a busy week.
The question is how the OT writers understood the word "death." It is clear that the OT writers did not view death as the end of the person, but saw the person continuing after death in an inferior state in She'ol. Death is often spoken of as "going to your fathers" (e.g. Gen. 15:15).
So I have two problems with your definition of death as "permanent cessation of all vital functions". First, the OT writers saw the dead as still existing in some sort of "vital" state in She'ol, so they would not have viewed "all vital functions" as ceasing. Second, your definition seems to speak only of the body in distinction to the spirit; this view is inconsistent with your proposal that the Hebrews viewed man as monistic (body and spirit inseperable).
Here is an interesting quote from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that seems to be a sort of combination of your position and mine:
ISBE, "Death" writes:
2. The Meaning of Death
This is decidedly expressed in Scripture much more so even than among ourselves. For we are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness, and is nowhere found in the OT. The whole man dies, when in death the spirit (Ps 146:4; Eccl 12:7), or soul (Gen 35:18; 2 Sa 1:9; 1 Ki 17:21; Jon 4:3), goes out of a man. Not only his body, but his soul also returns to a state of death and belongs to the nether-world; therefore the OT can speak of a death of one’s soul (Gen 37:21 (Hebrew); Num 23:10 margin; Dt 22:21; Jgs 16:30; Job 36:14; Ps 78:50), and of defilement by coming in contact with a dead body (Lev 19:28; 21:11; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:6; 9:6; 19:10 ff; Dt 14:1; Hag 2:13). This death of man is not annihilation, however, but a deprivation of all that makes for life on earth. ...
(FYI--for those here who aren't familiar with ISBE, it is an old, scholarly, theologically-conservative reference work. The general editor was James Orr, one of the original "Fundamentalists.")
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 09-21-2009 2:05 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2009 9:03 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 113 of 281 (526387)
09-27-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Bailey
09-26-2009 6:16 PM


Re: o.d.
bailey
Original deception?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 2:13
Then the Father said to the woman, What is this you have done?
And the woman replied, The serpent deceived*, me, and I ate.
14 ~ So the Father said to the serpent, Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all the wild beasts and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 pickers
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 6:16 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Bailey, posted 09-27-2009 9:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 114 of 281 (526389)
09-27-2009 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by purpledawn
09-26-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Relationship
PD writes:
The state didn't create the prisoner. The story says that God created Adam and Eve. That's a very different relationship than a warden. Yes it is very simple.
He created them, provided food for them, had one rule for them, disciplined them, and continued to watch over them. Very simple, but very different from a warden. Not a good analogy. A parent would be a better analogy.
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.
How does that fit in with the notion of spiritual death? The definition is becoming weaker and weaker.
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 had
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2009 3:16 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2009 9:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 115 of 281 (526419)
09-27-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by kbertsche
09-26-2009 6:33 PM


The Meaning of Death
quote:
So I have two problems with your definition of death as "permanent cessation of all vital functions".
Then stop putting the word permanent in front of cessation of all vital functions. I haven't said that. We aren't discussing what happens after death.
The uses of spiritual death in the instances I provided were referring to live people, not physically dead people. Does spiritual death refer to physically live people, physically dead people, or both?
Death - ISBE
PHYSIOLOGICAL AND FIGURATIVE VIEW
The word "Death" is used in the sense of (1) the process of dying (Gen 21:16); (2) the period of decease (Gen 27:7); (3) as a possible synonym for poison (2 Ki 4:40); (4) as descriptive of person in danger of perishing (Jdg 15:18; "in deaths oft" 2 Cor 11:23). In this sense the shadow of death is a familiar expression in Job, the Psalms and the Prophets; (5) death is personified in 1 Cor 15:55 and Rev 20:14. Deliverance from this catastrophe is called the "issues from death" (Ps 68:20 the King James Version; translated "escape" in the Revised Version (British and American)). Judicial execution, "putting to death," is mentioned 39 times in the Levitical Law.
Figuratively: Death is the loss of spiritual life as in Rom 8:6; and the final state of the unregenerate is called the "second death" in Rev 20:14.
Alex. Macalister
There is a basic meaning of the word death. The word can also be used creatively to convey other meanings. The people who feel that the word translated as die in Gen 2:17 means spiritual death, would need to show that the word translated as die is being used figuratively. That has not been shown.
Notice that the reference to loss of spiritual life in the ISBE definition is considered a figurative use.
Literary Devices
Figurative language: Any use of language where the intended meaning differs from the actual literal meaning of the words themselves. There are many techniques which can rightly be called figurative language, including metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, onomatopoeia, verbal irony, and oxymoron. (Related: figure of speech)
The ISBE also said:
1. Conception of Sin and Death:
According to Gen 2:17, God gave to man, created in His own image, the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and added thereto the warning, "in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Though not exclusively, reference is certainly made here in the first place to bodily death. Yet because death by no means came upon Adam and Eve on the day of their transgression, but took place hundreds of years later, the expression, "in the day that," must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercy (Gen 3:15).
Since they didn't physically die, mercy is what I have been attributing to the simple reading of the text. The wider theological interpretations cannot be gleaned from the simple reading of the text. Like I've said several times, we can change the story and interpret it any way we want to teach a specific theological lesson. That's why we are looking at the simple reading.
The ISBE meaning of death agrees that the Greek view of the spirit is different than the Israelites.
This is decidedly expressed in Scripture much more so even than among ourselves. For we are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness, and is nowhere found in the Old Testament.
Any separation of body and spirit is after death, not in life.
Of course since the word death in the phrase "spiritual death" isn't using the standard meaning of the word death according to you, what is your point?
The verses I provided were referring to the afterlife.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by kbertsche, posted 09-26-2009 6:33 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 116 of 281 (526420)
09-27-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
09-27-2009 3:26 AM


Re: Relationship
quote:
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.
There is considerable difference between a parent and a state official.
So where does the simple reading refer to a relationship change as spiritual death?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-27-2009 3:26 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-27-2009 9:55 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 117 of 281 (526421)
09-27-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Bailey
09-26-2009 5:55 PM


Re: The Soul that Sins Shall Die
Hey Bailey,
Thanks for the background.
I'm still trying to get a clear definition of spiritual death. It seems to vary.
Death supposedly refers to separation, but I haven't gotten a clear picture of what the spiritual portion is referring to.
Any clues?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 5:55 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Bailey, posted 09-27-2009 10:45 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 118 of 281 (526423)
09-27-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Bailey
09-25-2009 6:07 PM


Sacrifice or Offering
Hey Bailey,
Thanks for the clarification between a sacrifice and an offering.
This tells me they still had a relationship with God.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Bailey, posted 09-25-2009 6:07 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Bailey, posted 09-27-2009 11:11 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 119 of 281 (526425)
09-27-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by purpledawn
09-27-2009 9:10 AM


Re: Relationship
PD writes:
There is considerable difference between a parent and a state official.
Thats a statement, not an argument. Well ofcourse there is, but that is not the point, again with the dodging. He can be BOTH at the same time, that is the point. You still avoided the point that paradise was lost, immortality was recended, yet he still presided over everything including them, but the relationship was different because they did not have face to face contact with God and were in a different status now than before.
Question, was God still ruler over the trees and did he still take care of his creation after the creation was cursed? Hmmmmmm?
Yet there was a CHANGE, correct? Hmmmmmmm?
Both the creation and the people lost thier perfection and immortal status. How can that not be Spiritual? Does the word Spiritual have to appear in every verse for you to accept this principle
So where does the simple reading refer to a relationship change as spiritual death?
Paradise of PERFCTION, lost, immortality recended, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that immortality was not exsistent in them before hand, which the plain text certainly indicates. Your response that you dont like that will not cut it. Your response that we dont know if they ate of the tree of life before hand is nonsensical.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2009 9:10 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2009 1:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 124 by Bailey, posted 09-27-2009 11:26 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3477 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 120 of 281 (526439)
09-27-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dawn Bertot
09-27-2009 9:55 AM


Paradise
quote:
You still avoided the point that paradise was lost, immortality was recended, yet he still presided over everything including them, but the relationship was different because they did not have face to face contact with God and were in a different status now than before.
Eden as paradise (a place or state of bliss, felicity, or delight) is a later concept.
Jewish Encyclopedia
The word "paradise" is probably of Persian origin. It occurs but three times in the Old Testament, namely, in Cant. iv. 13, Eccl. ii. 5, and Neh. ii. 8. In the first of these passages it means "garden"; in the second and third, "park." In the apocalypses and in the Talmud the word is used of the Garden of Eden and its heavenly prototype (comp. references in Weber's "Jdische Theologie," 2d ed., 1897, pp. 344 et seq.). From this usage it came to denote, as in the New Testament, the abode of the blessed (comp. Luke xxiii. 43; II Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7).
The story doesn't talk about a change in the relationship. If it does, show me the words. The story doesn't continue with Adam and Eve or their relationship with God. The information just isn't there in the simple reading. Spiritual death cannot be gleaned from the simple reading of the text.
quote:
Paradise of PERFCTION, lost, immortality recended, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that immortality was not exsistent in them before hand, which the plain text certainly indicates. Your response that you dont like that will not cut it. Your response that we dont know if they ate of the tree of life before hand is nonsensical.
Again, the story does not give enough information. I have shown from the text that they were not immortal. They needed the tree of life to live forever. God states that very clearly. That is why he expelled them from the garden.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-27-2009 9:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-28-2009 3:01 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024