The NT plainly teaches that humans/souls are mortal by nature but may become immortal by the will of God.
(Rom 2:7 ESV) to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
(1Co 15:54 ESV) When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
In fact, to receive eternal life is to receive the gift of immortality. The damned, therefore, remain mortal.
God alone is by nature immortal —
(Rom 1:23 ESV) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
(1Ti 6:15-16 ESV) 15 which he will display at the proper time — he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
So we are born mortal, subject to permanent death, but God can give us eternal life, that is, immortality.
hey do you remember Solomon’s Temple.
There was not a saw or a hammer to be used inside the temple structure everything was pre cut everything had to dovetail.
And I told you Homer hailey told me one time.
you don’t cut a little piece of doctrine off here and you don’t hammer on little piece of doctrine there to make your theology workout.
Jay that’s exactly what you’re doing.
And when you do that J just like any other building that you put together it’s gotta be plum straight and square.
Jesus is the cornerstone.
God is not arbitrary there are no special circumstances even the Son was cursed
you don’t have a sound foundation to build on. like it or not that’s true and you know it.
now it might be pretty good J but that’s compared to what
Or Lexus commercials
I’m not speaking about anything other than specifically before the resurrection J we all know what happens after after after the resurrection that’s simple…
I don’t agree with Moo on 25 B Romans the third chapter. and I put that up top and the reason why.
I have questions why is Hades even mentioned why does Jesus say to the thief you will be with me today in paradise.
those are good questions that I would like to have answered and you should be able to answer them.
I understand God lives outside of time.
If I’m not mistaken Peter calls it the nether gloom I don’t know what that means either.
I’m pretty sure of one thing though that the paradise of God.
how does Abraham’s bosom in the poor man and the rich man make any sense at all.
I can understand it as a hyperbole.
there just seems to me to be too many parts of doctrine at this point in time that you’re cutting off I’d expect you to tell me if I was doing it.
That’s what brothers are for.
and what I would be wondering at this point because I don’t have the tools or the ability to study like you do but right now I’m reading some more I’m NT Wright concerning this I think.
Romans chapter 3 25 B.
what is Jesus talking about to the thief.
What does it mean and aCts the second chapter about the 37th verse.
the answer is there Jay its JeusT rightly dividing it and putting it together as best we can
hey just cuz I told you that I got a big kick out of that answer which I did I mean I was out eating lunch and people were staring at me.
I mean jay it doesn’t happen too often that you
Happen to be at that point of a losS for words.
I mean J you have to admit that was funny that picture was to me…
but then J I’ve learned not to take myself very seriously.
I’ve been wrong too many times so I’ll just throw it out on the wall and see if it sticks..
And I expect to get shot down,
we didn’t get here we didn’t get here today by not making mistakes my friend.
albeit it’s serious fun
Buckeye Chuck asked,
Never said that there is no such place. Rather, “Paradise” refers, I believe, to the new heavens and new earth of Rev 21-22 and Isa 65-66.
Here are the key “Paradise” verses —
In all three, “Paradise” is the same Greek word. It’s where saved people go when they die. It’s where Jesus is. And it’s where the tree of life is found.
The root of the word means “garden,” and so it suggests a return to Eden.
All of these point to the new heavens and earth following the general resurrection. The time problems are nicely solved by recognizing God is outside of our time — as time is part of the fabric of the creation — provably by the general theory of relativity and the many proofs thereof. But many Christian scholars reached this conclusion long before Einstein.
I should add —
The tree of life exists in paradise and in the new heavens and new earth.
QED
It could be argued that the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem — which is heaven, which is where Paul met the resurrected Jesus. If so, it all fits together rather nicely.
Now, that interpretation might have the thief on the cross in the NJ before the general resurrection or passing beyond time directly to the NJ while merged with the earth. Either is possible.
The NT is not consistent about the fate of the dead between now the general resurrection. Sometimes the dead are said to sleep. It is hinted that the dead may be in heaven, in the New Jerusalem, awaiting the general resurrection. But the GR picture the saved coming out of their graves –which is quite different from descending to earth in the NJ.
I think the NT indulges both images because there is truth in both that is not easily conveyed in a single metaphor. I mean, to the living, the dead seem to sleep. But the living want to think of the dead as already judged, saved, and with God. Which is true — but perhaps true only because of the outside-time thing.
In reality, the resurrection passages speak of the dead coming out their graves — as though they’d been asleep — but we know that their bodies will have long ago disintegrated and disappeared. And the image is powerful and true in that God will give the dead in Christ transformed bodies to join him in the new heavens and new earth.
I mean, consider —
These passages plainly say the dead will rise from their graves — not descend from heaven. Dan 12 concurs. So what do we do with these passages — which are entirely orthodox. I mean, we read them in funerals every day — but we don’t notice that they tell a different story from the idea of a heavenly waiting room pending the Second Coming. You really can’t insist on both.
I can plausibly interpret the ‘waiting room’ passages to refer to the “skip to Judgment Day” scenarios. I can’t make the rising from the grave passages fit with a waiting room interpretation.
Buckeye Chuck asked,
More importantly (to me), Paul met Jesus in Paradise. But who says the dead in Christ must travel the same path as the resurrected Jesus? Jesus ascended to heaven — bodily — to be with God pending the Second Coming. That doesn’t mean that the dead in Christ do the same. Their resurrection comes much later.
Buckeye Chuck asked,
I see nothing in the Psalm you quoted that suggests God makes us into eternal beings in the womb. Only that he makes us.
I’ve not said that we aren’t human in the womb. I said we are souls whenever we become human. There is biblical support for the notion that life begins with our first breath. Doesn’t mean it’s so. Means there’s an argument for it — and we should respect that fact. (We must not treat those who disagree with us on biblical grounds as foolish or bad. In fact, Gen refers to Adam and Eve becoming “souls” when God gave them “breath” or “spirit” —
THose who argue that this applies to birth are not idiots. The verse says what it says. What it doesn’t say is that man’s body was of no importance to God prior to becoming a “soul” or “person” — that is, alive.
More importantly, if we eliminate the notion of possessing an immortal soul, then Gen 2:7 no longer means that the person gains an immortal soul and becomes human. Rather, the verse simply says that Adam was not alive. God breathed breath/spirit into him, and then he was alive (a soul).
That is not necessarily analogous to birth, as a pile of dust formed into a man who is not breathing is unambiguously dead. Not just not a “soul” but not alive at all. Whereas birth is a very different process, and the first human plainly was not formed by the same process as later humans.
Thus, while Gen 2:7 says what it says, and I respect the argument, I think the argument is wrong due to having false assumptions about what is a “soul” in Jewish/Christian thought.
When you work your way through it all, I think the anti-abortion argument is stronger as the “immortal soul” concept works to favor the pro-abortion side.
I then argued that even without breath ( =spirit), the scriptures place value of the body, both pre-birth and post-death. Indeed, the incarnation and the resurrection as a bodily resurrection demonstrate the value God places on the human body.
All the traditional anti-abortion verses remain on the books. The argument that cannot be legitimately made is that humans are given a “soul” by God when they are conceived or when they are born or anytime at all, because humans are souls, they don’t possess souls.
Humans are not innately immortal before or after birth — but humans are of immense value to God before and after birth.
The idea that it’s only wrong to abort a fetus if the fetus has a soul is simply wrong. It’s arguing about the wrong thing. The Bible doesn’t address when humans receive souls because they ARE souls, they don’t receive souls.
Rather, what matters is when do we become of value of God? And the traditional verses that speak of God’s interest in us pre-birth speak much more powerfully if the “soul” language is gone and we just talk about what God does and doesn’t value.
Jay, I can never out debate you. Your debate skills, being an attorney, are top notch and far exceed my skills. But, I’m not trying out out debate you. I am thankful that you have provided such a valuable place for many to learn new truths. I’m trying to learn and grasp some new concepts and I would like to think that I represent the thoughts of others who are coming from where I am on these issues. I do appreciate your patience with me and my comments.
I do see some discrepancies and conclusions I question. I’m not an accomplished Bible scholar. I’m more of just a regular guy trying to figure it all out. And I’m still listening.
Unquestionably there are multiple texts that speak of the new heaven and the new earth as you have correctly pointed out. But, what doesn’t seem clear to me is that it MUST be THIS earth. It seems to me just as reasonable to think that it may refer to a symbolic new heaven and new earth. I recognize the possibility that this earth could also become the new earth if that is God’s plan. I also don’t question the meaning of the words that refer to the Garden. But, couldn’t the Garden refer to the restoration to God’s perfection as the Garden was, but not necessarily THE Garden physically located somewhere in Mesopotamia?
I’ve been through course work from the Sunset School of Preaching written by Jim McGuiggan, Richard Rogers and others. It was written in the 1970s but that doesn’t invalidate it. Their interpretation of the apocalyptic language in Daniel and Revelation lead to a conclusion where from chapter 4 through 22, it speaks primarily of the end of the Roman Empire AND the glorification of the church on this present earth (some extremely brief summarization there). This message was critical for the 1st Century church to encourage them that they would not only endure severe times and trials at the hands of the Roman Caesars, but would rule even though these events which were the end of their civilization as they knew it was about to occur.
You said that we need to feel that we are home now. That does seem somewhat in agreement with the idea that the church IS the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven because the church is simply that glorious in God’s view. As you read Rev 21, it certainly does describe God’s view of the church. We are now a part of this church. It has been glorified now, but will be even more glorified at the final coming of Jesus. From that perspective, it’s an easy conclusion that the new earth and the new Jerusalem are symbolic of the glorious church, present and future.
There are many who are convinced in the Pre-millenial doctrines where Jesus will reign on the earth from David’s throne in Jerusalem for 1,000 years before the final judgment. Even our national foreign policy has been shaped from this view regarding Israel. We have to be on their side because when Armageddon occurs, we must be on the right side in that event. I find this belief to be completely incorrect and not from Scripture. Rather, this teaching makes an incorrect literal interpretation of figurative and symbolic language in Revelation.
The term itself “end of the world” can simply mean the end of the world as we know it. It seems that was the case in Rev. 7:14 regarding those who had come out of the great tribulation.
Scripture speaks of fire burning the earth. 2 Peter 3:10 says, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.”
This language seems just as plausible to to be literal to me as the new earth being a restored and resurrected physical earth, the 3rd rock from our Sun. Yet, it is possible that God could restore it even after it’s burning destruction, much like occurred with the earth after the Flood. I do want to be in that Holy City wherever it might be located. I also believe we can have different understandings of how it is and still all be residents. It seems reasonable to me that we will have a resurrected body that we can’t comprehend and NT writers’ description can’t do it justice. It also seems reasonable that the new heaven, the new earth and the New Jerusalem could be much the same.
Jay,
So this human is a soul, all humans are a soul, the body and the soul is together forever, you know like immortal. These body and souls sometimes are obedient to God and sometimes are not. The soul is not separated from the body by any action that the body performs. Sin by a human does not separate the human and his soul.
The communication here is not paying attention to the message in creation and thereafter.
Translations differ somewhat on what man was identified as after God breathed life into him. Some use the term, “became a living soul” others, “became a living creature”. Well scriptures all down through time repeatedly identify man as having a soul or being a soul. I do not remember many references later in scripture referring to man as just a living creature. Living creature is a common expression referring to the creation other than man which are not souls.
Now for the problem I see, God had warned man of death if he disobeyed. Man did disobey. We then see a record of him being removed from the presence of the Tree of Life, with an explanation that if he then ate of that tree he would live forever. Therefore, man cannot live forever, he will die. This is the physical death of humans. If this was what God had reference to while giving man instructions about eating from the tree, and this is the only death recorded in early scripture, how can we be commanded to be born again when we have not experienced death. The body of this human who has died could not perform a repentance and have faith in God to be restored to a living soul. Oh but did the soul die at the death of the body? If it did not die as the body died would it not be immortal? Or if the death of the body does not cause the soul to die what can. Don’t we read that all souls of dead bodies will be reunited with their bodies to stand in judgement? The soul won’t be there without the body and the body will not be in the judgement without the soul. The soul can live without the body but the body will never live without the soul.
This is the only verse in ESV that contain these two words.
Eph 2:1 ESV And you were (dead) in the trespasses and (sins)
But, the Gospel Message is offering again immortal life to a soul (which is also a body) to mankind who is (dead in sins). The soul is not dead and neither is the body, otherwise the body could not obey the message of the Gospel.
There is something which has been left out of this discussion. Jesus identifies it.
Joh 3:3-8 ESV Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (4) Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (5) Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
No one can be reborn of a physical birth. If the Spirit in a man had not died the term born again would not be applicable. If a man’s first encounter with the Spirit was while obeying the Gospel then this would be the first birth not a replacement birth (something had to exist to be redone).
When did a human first acquire the Spirit? Is it recorded? Did Adam and Eve have this Spirit prior to their sin? If they did not have it will they need it for their place in the the Kingdom. Christ plainly stated the Spirit is a requirement.
Humans at birth and until they disobey God’s instructions are not accountable, but at the point of sin they die (their Spirit that is) and without that they cannot enter the Kingdom. Thus the need to be born again.
Ex 21:22-25 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. NKJV
Ex 21:22-25
22 “If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. 23 But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
(from The NET Bible®, Copyright © 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C., Dallas, Texas, http://www.bible.org. All rights reserved. Used by permission.)
\Exodus 21:18-32
Verse 22-25. If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born,
(Note: The words ylaadeyhaa wyaats°uw are rendered by the LXX kai’ exe’lthee to’ paidi’on autee’s mee’ exeikonisme’non and the corresponding clause yihyeh°aacown w°im by
ea’n de’ exeikonisme’non ee’ ; consequently the translators have understood the words as meaning that the fruit, the premature birth of which was caused by the blow, if not yet developed into a human form, was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation-as Philo expresses it, “on account of the injury done to the woman, and because he prevented nature, which forms and shapes a man into the most beautiful being, from bringing him forth alive.” But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at once; for yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form.
In a manner no less arbitrary °aacown has been rendered by Onkelos and the Rabbins
mowtaa°, death, and the clause is made to refer to the death of the mother alone, in opposition to the penal sentence in vv. 23, 24, which not only demands life for life, but eye for eye, etc., and therefore presupposes not death alone, but injury done to particular members. The omission of
laah, also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone.) a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it bipliliym by (by an appeal to) arbitrators. A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life. (For yaatsaa° to go out of the womb, see Gen 25:25-26.) The plural
ylaadeyhaa is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb. “But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,…wound for wound:” thus perfect retribution was to be made.
(from Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.)
The passage above seems to give credence to the value of life before birth. When does God imbue the body with a spiritual nature? Are any of us wise enough to know? Does “breath of life” have to be an oxygen/co2 mix or is the oxygen given thru the mother sufficient to qualify as breath of life? — It certainly would seem to be from the unborn child’s viewpoint.
John F,
Sorry that your Hebrew fonts didn’t translate well to the Internet. I have the same problem sometimes.
If I have time and energy, I’ll try to post a post or two on abortion in light of what I’m trying to explain regarding souls and spirits. The result, to me, is that the case against abortion actually becomes stronger, but I only managed to figure that out by answering questions here. Thanks to everyone for pushing me to answer hard questions.