Hi Br. Bear,
I guess regarding the word holy, someone could make an argument that holy includes burning bodies in Gehenna. I think, however, the point is that it is bodies that are burning and not the ghosts of people. I use the word ghosts not in a derogatory sense, but rather that it is actually the best word to describe what it is that people think of when we say someone lives on after death. The words spirit and soul are not actually accurate as they don't mean that.
Regarding your question about when someone dies, you said, "who" goes back into the body. This indicates to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe the person is something other than the body, correct? My question wouldn't be "who" goes back into the body, but rather "what" goes back into the body. You see, my argument is based on the idea that the body "is" the person. Per Gen.2:7 man was created from the dust of the earth. That is what a man is, dust. Then we read that God breathed something of Himself into the man. This was the breath or spirit (same word) of life. The picture we see here is that something came out of God and went into the man and this breath gave the man life. This breath is not man, but something of God, Himself. When these two came together they formed a living soul. We're told in Ecclesiastes that when the man dies this breath or spirit returns to God. We would expect that as it something of God, Himself. It is my contention that at this point the soul has ceased to exist as it's component parts have separated. That leaves us with the body or the man who returns to dust. In this passage we have all three accounted for, the body, the spirit, and the soul. We are told that the soul consists of the other two. When they separate the soul no longer exists, the breath returns to God and the body to the dust. Thus there is nothing left to live on after the man dies.
So, to answer your question I would submit that it's not "who" but "what" goes into that body. It is God's breath. We actually have God stating this. In Ezekiel 37 we read of the valley of dry bones. This is an account of the resurrection of Israel. In it we see Ezekiel prophesy and the bones come together and flesh comes on them but they are not alive. Then Ezekiel is told to prophesy to the wind and the breath comes into them and they live. God gives the explanation of this and He says,
And I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land: and ye shall know that I, Jehovah, have spoken it and performed it, saith Jehovah. (Ezek. 37:14 ASV)
Here we see God saying He will put His breath in them and they will live. This is just what we see in Gen 2:7, God putting His breath in man and man becoming a living soul.
You asked where the soul was in the waiting. According to what I've posted here the soul no longer existed in the waiting.
You said,
Now, going on to logic, as it appears to be something being discussed in the thread as a means to an end....
Why should anyone really bother about it all? I mean, who really cares about all this GOD and Jesus His Son stuff if in the end we will simply die and be gone? What's the point in getting my knickers in a knot about it all.... I mean, logically, if i simply get extinguished after a rabid life of fulfilling my own desire and pleasure without a hoot about all you religious nuts and your daft claims, then give me a good reason to get even slightly bothered by it all? And while i am at it, all this goes to prove that religion is a menace to society.
If i am simply gone and that is it, with no further knowledge about what i might be missing behind the pearly gates, then tell me why i should ever change my mind and get converted? From what i read, it is a life of bickering and people whipping themselves to some fantasy land that none of them even agree about and throughout history have gone about massacring any and every body who disagrees, either literally or in their heart or by plain neglect and apathy.
See the logic in that?
If so, how does one deal with it?
My answer to why be converted is simply, does one want to live on forever, or die? I think this is where our presuppositions come into play. If we presuppose that man will live on apart from the body, then death doesn't really mean anything. It's nothing more than a snake shedding it's skin. However, if we presuppose that man is a mortal being as I proposed above, then death means everything. At death one would no longer exist. We see this is the contrast in Scripture. Paul said, 'the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. The contrast is life and death. God said, 'the soul that sins shall die'. He also said that one who lives righteously will live. Again, the contrast is life and death. Jesus said that God so loved the word that He sent His only begotten Son that whosever believes in Him should have eternal life and not perish. Again, the contrast is life and death. We see this contrast in Scripture over and over.
I've not found anything in Scripture that says the wages of sin is eternal torment. Even as wicked as men can be we don't do that. We have a justice system that doles out capital punishment. What is that punishment? It is death. We don't take murderers and torment them for the rest of their lives? Why not? It's considered cruel and inhumane. If we consider it cruel and inhumane how much more so does God. We can see in Scripture what God has set forth as justice, an eye for an eye. Even when one was flogged, they could only give 40 lashes. God indicated more than that was unjust.
Regarding Young's translation, it's just one of many, I didn't use it to make my argument. May argument is based on Scripture and logic. Both aion and olam are used of things that end, finite periods of time. The law of Non Contradiction says that two opposing things cannot both be true at the same time. I'm sure you know that. I would submit then that the words cannot mean both finite time and infinite time. We can see that when the words are translated forever it causes conflicts in many passages of Scripture. However, when translated age or ages, it fits in every passage of Scripture. I would think this would be an indication that age is the correct definition.
I don't believe I've overused the word aion, If we take away the word aion, can anyone even make a case for eternal conscious torment? I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that can be used to make the case. If that's so, then the entire doctrine rests on the interpretation of a single word. No one can present any physical evidence. I mean we can't go somewhere and speak to dead people, we can see them. There's no physical evidence. The only evidence anyone can present comes from the Scriptures. There is nothing in Scripture that states dead people are alive, so it's by way of inference. We are literally basing an entire doctrine on people's interpretation of one word. So, I think the word is critical to my argument.
You said,
"How long will the Pslamist do this?
I will give thanks to You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And will glorify Your Name forever.
Psalm 86:12
If the Psalmist has/is given eternal life, that might indicate almost a prophetic declaration he is making?"
I would ask, is the Psalmist doing it now? Again, this is where our presuppositions come into play. If one believes that a part of man lives on after death, they'd likely answer yes. If they believe that man is just a man as I proposed above, they would answer no. This is one of the points I've been making, our presuppositions will determine how we interpret the text. This is why things I say seem odd to some here. Our presuppositions are different. If one believes that a part of man continues on after death they are going to interpret certain passages of Scripture differently than those of us who see man as a mortal being. Getting back to the Psalmist. If we presuppose that man can live on apart from the body we will interpret that passage as forever. If we presuppose that man cannot live apart from the body then we will interpret that passage as the Psalmist saying, unto the age.
You said,
"Regarding the belief (commonly regurgitated by those who are dead-set about this topic) of the entry of the idea of of eternal life coming from Plato and being Greek in origin, that must be held debatable as nearly every culture from dot have had differing thoughts about it and simply stating that it was a greek idea is not really a good representation of truth in this matter. Plato was a late-comer into the idea. For example the oracles of Delphi were around for at least four hundred years before he popped out of his mother's womb, and maybe even up to a thousand years before?
Therefore, while i have no problem in using Young's (which i often refer to) and i have no problem with age and ages being correctly rendered, some of what you have presented thus far is debatable and therefore potentially of no real use in your presentation/argument.
It may be well worthwhile checking on your current position and honestly see how much you do, as you have suggested at times that others might do, and that is, to repeat without due diligence, beforehand."
I didn't say the idea of eternal life originated with Plato. I said, it entered Christianity from Greek thought and that it was primarily Plato. I'm aware that the idea was around prior to that time. It was held by the Egyptians and Babylonians hundreds if not thousands of years before that. My point was only that it entered Christianity from Greek thought. I would also question what you believe I have presented that is debatable. I've studied and debated this subject for several years now. That doesn't make me correct, but It has solidified my arguments. I've yet to see anyone make case of ETC other than saying aion means forever because it's in the dictionary. I did have a guy one time attempt to make a case from Scripture using parallels. However, upon closer examination that case fell apart. I personally don't hold dictionaries or commentaries as infallible. Regarding due diligence, as I've stated previously, I've gone through the Scriptures looking at these words, I wonder if those holding the opposing view have. I've looked at, Nephesh, Psuche, Ruach, Neshamah, Pnuema, Hades, Sheol, and Gehenna, throughout the Bible as they pertain to this subject. I've seen how they are used in the OT and the NT. I've seen how Jesus and the apostles took their useage from the OT and brought them into the NT. What I'm stating I've studied. If someone can show me differently I'm all ears. However, I was on that side once. It was a deeper study of Scripture that caused me to leave that position and come to the one I currently hold.
You said,
"Like the horizon that can move, [i forgot to mention the sea-faring man, and his horizon, and the knowledge shared by those who did with those who didn't, even way back] sometimes we do need to zoom completely out of the space we are in to be able to see the whole picture freshly and see if and where we might have missed something or if something doesn't really fit. I think some refer to that as being logical and careful at the same time.
We have to also be willing to have another or two challenge everything for us and to trust that they do so with good intent. A rare breed."
I did that and am still doing it. I used to believe the typical Christian doctrines until I reached a point where I was being taught opposing doctrines from the same Bible. I realized that both churches couldn't be right, but at least one of them had to be wrong. That started a quest to find out what the Bible really taught. That lead to a inspection of the early church, those Christians immediately after the apostles. What did they teach? Those who knew the apostles, what did they have to say? That along with much deeper study of the word has taught me that much of what is taught today is simply not Biblical.
You said,
"I say this ALL without having a personal go at you and while my wording might seem like it, i am writing man to man and i want to think that you will read it thus and not be offended by how i have presented this post. [for any who might think i am being rude, i am not and i trust Butch5 to know where i am coming from as far as this being friendly fire, only,)
(strange that we need disclaimers but that is the state of affairs these days, it seems)"
I've not taken offense. We should always challenge what we believe. If it can't stand the test It isn't truth.
I think what it boils down to is that we all bring presuppositions to the text. The question is, did we form those presuppositions "from" the text? In the past one of my presuppositions was that man could live on apart from the body. I imposed that on the text of Scripture. When I did I believed that man would suffer eternal conscious torment. Then one day that presupposition was challenged. After some in depth study, I came to realize that that presupposition wasn't Biblical. I had to make a choice at that point.
