===================================================
What does the Bible say about an immortal soul and or spirit? Nothing. Together soul and spirit are used almost 1,100 times in the King James Version, but not one time is immortal even used in the same verse with either one. Immortal and immortality are in the Old Testament 0 times, in the New Testament, immortal one time, immortality five times, all by Paul. What does he say?
Why are we to "seek for" that which we are born with? Why will we "put on immortality" if the only part of us that will ever be immortal, has been immortal from birth (or before birth)? The fact that a person must "seek for...immortality" and immortality must be "put on" at the resurrection is conclusive proof that a person does not now have it. If Romans 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:53 teaches nothing more, it teaches that no part of a person now possess immortality.
There are only two views that are commonly believed about what will happen to mankind after death. [One] That the soul of all will live forever and cannot die, the soul of the lost must exist somewhere for all the lost have eternal life and are not subject to the wages of sin which is death, or [Two] the wages of sin is death and the lost will die, they do not now have eternal life and never will.
-------------------------------------------------------
Third edition: 492,000 + copies downloaded to date of all three editions combined.
Download and Save the free pdf book at INDEX AND ALL TEN CHAPTERS pdf "Unconditional Immortality Or Resurrection Of The Dead" By William Robert West, Infinity Pub., ISBN- 0-7414-4620-0, 365 Pages, 2008.
Or buy the printed copy FROM BOOKSTORES ON THE WEB:
--------------------------------
If the soul or spirit were immortal and could never die or be dead, how could there be a resurrection of the dead? Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? If yes, the resurrection of what? Will your dead body be raised from the dead or do you believe a soul that is not dead will be raised from the dead? When I first begin this study, I was surprised and made to tremble at how few believed in the resurrection and how many there are that do not really know what they believe about it. Many believe some part of themselves will go to Heaven or Hell at death without a resurrection, before the resurrection and Judgment Day and before the second coming of Christ, but when asked what is the reason for the resurrection, they not only do not know, but have never really thought about it. Death is looked at as being a doorway to life in another form, that death is not really death, and there is nowhere in their thoughts or in their faith for a resurrection for their theology says no one is really dead. The resurrection has been removed from the faith of many by today's theology that some immortal part of a person will go to Heaven at the moment of death. BUT IS THERE ANY LIFE AFTER DEATH BEFORE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD? Paul said at the resurrection, "This mortal must put on immortality," but if the soul is now immortal, then what is it that is now mortal that will put on immortality at the resurrection?
Many reinterpretations have been made in the past, reinterpretations that are historical facts and are believed by many today and have caused many of the divisions we now have, and without doubt, many will make other reinterpretations of many scriptures and many will accept them. About all Protestants believe Purgatory to be a reinterpretation, and there are hundreds more reinterpretations that are historical facts and are believed by many today, but no one believes all to the hundreds of reinterpretations made in the past. Most believe only a few of them, and all the many others they believe to be the doctrine of man, not God. On what does anyone basic his or her belief that most reinterpretations are not from God, but a few are from God? Going to God's word is the only way anyone can know whether any teaching is from man or if it is from the Bible
Three past reinterpretations are the subject of this study. These three are believed by many today and have caused many of the divisions we now have.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHAPTER ONE - The reinterpretation of the nature of man. What is man?
SOUL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
SOUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE GREAT CONFUSION: Soul or spirit or both? Which one is immortal? Where did the idea of an immortal soul originate?
Chapter Two: Life or death http://robertwr.com/life.html
Chapter Three: The reinterpretations of the great doctrines of the Bible. http://robertwr.com/immortal.html
Chapter Four: From where came Hell? The Changing Hell. The Vanishing Hell. CHAPTERS FOUR, FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN. http://robertwr.com/hell.html
Chapter Five: Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and the Nether World. CHAPTERS FOUR, FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN. http://robertwr.com/hell.html
Chapter Six: The thirty-one passages where Hell is used in the King James Version.
Chapter Seven: A strange and unexplainable silence: The reinterpreting of life, death, torment, destruction, destroy, perish, die, and end.
Chapter Eight: The interpretation of figurative language, metaphors, and symbolical passage. CHAPTERS EIGHT, NINE, AND TEN. http://robertwr.com/heaven.html
Chapter Nine: Universalist: The "age lasting" Hell.
Chapter Ten: The results of reinterpreting: Evil Pagan teachings that are attributed to God.
A FREE pdf COPY OF THIS E-BOOK, All ten chapters above can be downloaded from: www.robertwr.com/resurrection.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------
What is a man? Is a person born with an immortal soul, or do the saved put on immortality at the resurrection? Is he a three part being, an animal body with both a soul and a spirit that will live without the body? This is one of the most important questions of all time. It has more influence on our conception of our nature, our view of life in this world and life after death than any other question.
Soul [nehphesh] in the Old Testament: (Strong spells it "nehpesh" Hebrew word #5315). If the "soul" is an immortal "immaterial, invisible part of man" (Vine), why is this Hebrew word that is translated soul throughout the Old Testament translated "living creature" when it is speaking of animals in Genesis 1:21; 1:24; 2:19; 9:10; 9:12; 9:15; 9:16 when the same Hebrew word [nehphesh] is translated "living soul" in Genesis 2:7 when it is speaking of a person? In the Hebrew, if this were an immaterial, immortal part of a person, it would also be an immaterial, immortal part of animals.
[1] Genesis 1:20 "life" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures" [soul - nehphesh] (American Standard Version). "The moving creature that has life" (footnote in KJV).
[2] Genesis 1:21 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] "And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature [soul - nehphesh] that moves wherewith the water swarmed."
[3] Genesis 1:24 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] "And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures [soul - nehphesh] after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth."
[4] Genesis 1:30 "life" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] "And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life" [soul - nehphesh]. "A living soul" used referring to animals. Animals are "a living soul."
ALL FOUR TIMES SOUL IS USED IN GENESIS ONE, IT IS USED REFERRING TO ANIMALS, NOT TO A PERSON. ANIMALS WERE SOULS BEFORE ANY MAN EXISTED. "Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of LIVING SOULS [soul-nehpheshs], and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' And God created the great sea monsters, and every LIVING SOUL [soul - nehphesh] that moves with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth LIVING SOULS [soul-nehpheshs] after their kind: cattle and creeping thing and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so...and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is LIFE [soul - nehphesh], I have given every green herb for meat" [Genesis 1:20-30].
[5] Genesis 2:7 "A living soul" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to a person]. The first time the King James Version translated nehphesh into "soul," most other translations did not agree with it, not even the New King James Version. "Man became a living being" New King James Version.
Man became:
The first time nehphesh is used referring to a person, most translations apply it to the living breathing being or person, not to an invisible inter part of a person. ADAM BEING SPOKEN OF AS A "LIVING BEING" [nehphesh] PROVES HE WAS MORTAL, NOT IMMORTAL, JUST AS ALL "LIVING BEINGS" [nehphesh] ARE MORTAL, NOT IMMORTAL. HOW CAN THIS BE ONE OF THE PROOF TEXTS USED TO PROVE ADAM WAS MADE WITH AN IMMORTAL SOUL? IF IT PROVES ADAM HAD AN IMMORTAL SOUL, THEN IT PROVES THAT FISH HAVE AN IMMORTAL SOUL.
[6] Genesis 2:19 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals]. "Every beast...every bird...whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
[7] Genesis 9:4 "life" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals].
[8] Genesis 9:5 "lives" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man].
[9] Genesis 9:5 "life" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man].
[10] Genesis 9:10 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals].
[11] Genesis 9:12 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals].
[12] Genesis 9:15 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man and animals].
[13] Genesis 9:16 "living creature" [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man and animals].
IN GENESIS 9:4-16 THE SAME WORD IS USED FOR BOTH MAN AND ANIMALS SEVEN TIMES IN THE SAME PASSAGE.
"But flesh with the LIFE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. And surely your blood, the blood of your LIVES [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man], will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it: and at the hand of men, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the LIFE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man] of man. Whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he men. And you, be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. And God spoke unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you; And every LIVING CREATURE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] that is with you, of the fowl, and the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall the waters of a flood cut off all flesh be any more; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every LIVING CREATURE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] that is with you, for perpetual generation: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every LIVING CREATURE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man and animals] of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every LIVING CREATURE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to man and animals] of all flesh that is upon the earth."
All four times in Genesis 1, soul [nehphesh] is used referring to animals, not to a person. IN TEN OF THE FIRST THIRTEEN TIMES SOUL [NEHPHESH] IS USED IT IS USED REFERRING TO ANIMALS, but the King James Version hides this by using different words, and most who read the King James Version never know it. NEHPHESH IS TRANSLATED "SOUL" ONLY ONE TIME OF THE FIRST THIRTEEN TIMES IT IS USED in the King James Version; but it is not translated "soul" in any of the first thirteen times it is used in the New King James Version, New American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, or New International Version. Mankind has the same soul [life - nehphesh] as the other "living creatures." He does not differ from other living creatures [soul - nehphesh] by having a soul [nehphesh] that cannot die. His dominion over other living creatures [Other nehpheshs - souls] is not his nehphesh.
Mike Willis says expositors have generally appealed to Genesis 2:7 to prove that all men are born with and now have immortal spirits. However, in 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul has clearly expounded the meaning of the Hebrew words nehphesh, chayyah. "The living soul" of Genesis 2:7 is the natural body of this passage. He says this corresponds with the book of Genesis itself because the same construction is used in Genesis 1:24 to describe animals. When Moses recorded that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul, what the writer of Genesis was saying was that the dust of the earth began to have animal life and does not prove that a person has an immortal spirit (soul); rather it states that a person has animal life. All men possess animal life through Adam. A Commentary On Paul's First Epistle To the Corinthians, Page 578, 1979. For one who knows the Bible as he does and believes a person has an immortal soul, yet says, the living soul of Genesis 2:7 is the natural body, proves beyond doubt that a living soul is not an immortal inter part of a person.
Guy N. Woods says the first time in Genesis 1:20 the word soul is used is from the Hebrew nehphesh where it is assigned to fish, birds, and creeping things. He says it is clear that the soul in these passages does not refer to anything peculiar to the constitution of man, but it signifies, as its usage denotes, and the lexicons affirm, any creature that breathes. "What Is The Soul Of Man," Gospel Advocate, 1985, Number 21.
Adam Clarke "Nephesh chaiyah; a general term to express all creatures endued with animal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the half reasoning elephant down to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the polype, which seems equally to share the vegetable and animal life."
IN THE FIRST NINE CHAPTERS OF GENESIS SOUL [nehphesh] IS THE ANIMAL LIFE, WHICH BOTH A PERSON AND ANIMALS HAVE IN COMMON. HOW DID THE TRANSLATORS KNOW WHEN IT CHANGED TO AN INVISIBLE INTER IMMORTAL PART OF A PERSON, WHICH ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE?
[14] Genesis 12:5 "And the people [soul - nehphesh] whom they had acquired" New King James Version ["soul" in King James Version].
[15] Genesis 12:13 "That I [soul - nehphesh] may live because of you" New King James Version ["soul" in King James Version].
[16] Genesis 14:21 "Give me the persons [soul - nehphesh] and take the goods" King James Version.
[17] Genesis 17:14 "That person [soul - nehphesh] shall be cut off" New King James Version.
[18] Genesis 19:17 "Escape for your life [soul - nehphesh]" King James Version.
[19] Genesis 19:19 "Saving my life [soul - nehphesh]" King James Version.
IN THE FIRST NINETEEN TIMES NEHPHESH IS USED IT IS TRANSLATED SOUL ONLY THREE TIMES IN THE KING JAMES VERSION, NONE IN THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION, NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION, OR NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.
[20] Genesis 19:20 "That my life [soul - nehphesh] may be saved" New American Standard Version [Soul for the fourth time in the King James Version and first time in the New King James Version].
[21] Genesis 23:8 "If it be your mind [soul - nehphesh]" King James Version.
[22] Genesis 27:4 "So that I may bless you before I [soul - nehphesh] die" New Revised Standard Version. UP TO GENESIS 27:4 NEHPHESH IS TRANSLATED "SOUL" IN THE KING JAMES VERSION FOUR TIMES AND THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION ONE TIME. EVEN THEN IT IS NOT TRANSLATED "SOUL" IN MANY OTHERS TRANSLATIONS.
Nehphesh has been used 21 times before the New King James Version used "soul" for the first time, but even then the translators of many versions have chosen not to translate it "soul." IN GENESIS "NEHPHESH" IS NOT AN IMMORTAL "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN," BUT IT IS THE LIFE, LIVING CREATURE, LIVING BEING, ANY LIVING THING, WHETHER ANIMALS, FISH, OR MAN. IF THE TRANSLATORS HAD CONTINUED TO TRANSLATE NEHPHESH AS LIFE, LIVING CREATURE, LIVING BEING, OR PERSON, AS THEY DID IN THE FIRST TWENTY-ONE TIMES IT IS USED, THERE MAY NOT BE THE DIVISIONS THERE ARE TODAY. WHY DID THEY NOT TRANSLATE NEHPHESH INTO SOUL IN THE FIRST PART OF THE BIBLE? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE MADE ANIMALS HAVE SOULS, AND THEY DID NOT BELIEVE ANIMALS COULD HAVE SOULS. I find it difficult to see how anyone could not call their honesty into question for it is undeniable that they put their belief over the word of God and deliberately hid the truth from their readers; deliberately hid the truth from you.
[23] Genesis 32:30 "My life [soul - nehphesh] is preserved" King James Version. Most translations use "life" in this passage for a soul that cannot perish does not need to be preserved.
[24] Genesis 34:3
[25] Genesis 34:8
[26] Genesis 35:18
[27] Genesis 36:6 "All the persons [nehphesh] of his house" King James Version.
[28] Genesis 37:21 "Let us not kill him [nehphesh]" King James Version.
[29] Job 12:10 "In whose hand is the soul [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." "The life of every living thing" New American Standard Bible.
[30] Job 41:21 "His breath [soul - nehphesh, used referring to an animal, possibly a crocodile]."
[31] Isaiah 19:10 "All that make sluices and ponds for fish [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals, fish]" King James Version.
[32] Jeremiah 2:24 "A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffed up the wind in her [soul - nehphesh, used referring to an animal] desire."
[33] Numbers 31:28 "And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul [nehphesh-used referring to man and animals] of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses and of the sheep."
"So carefully has the translation of nehphesh been guarded in relation to animals as 'souls,' that we can't help but wonder if it were not done intentionally to conceal the fact that animals are souls as well as men." David J. Heinizman, "Man Became A Living Soul."
[34 to 870] It would be too long to quote about 870 times the Hebrew word nehphesh is in the Old Testament with just over one-half being translated "soul" in King James Version [Wigram, Page 829, Old Testament].
Can one word be rightly translated this way? Can a word that is not a pronoun be rightly translated into a pronoun as it is in the King James Version? How could the translators know when to change the noun into a pronoun? NO ONE READING MANY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE WOULD HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT ALL THESE WORDS ARE TRANSLATIONS (OR MISTRANSLATIONS) OF ONLY ONE WORD. Did the translators do so because they wanted to make a person be an "immortal being," and more than a "living creatures?" In almost one half of the times nehphesh is used in the Old Testament, even the King James translators could not translate it "soul." When the all-knowing God used just one word, why did the translators use many words and change it as they wish to from a noun to a pronoun? Did they think that for all the years from Adam unto Christ, God thought people could understand just one word; but now about forty words are needed to translate one word? If one word were all that was needed from Adam to the King James Version, why would God's one word not be enough today? Do the translators think they have improved the Hebrew Old Testament? The use of many words came when the Catholic Church brought in unconditional immortality, and they had to get it into the Bible. The Hebrew manuscripts still have just one word - nehphesh, which was the one word God inspired. Were the translators inspired to change it to many words?
Nehphesh is translated "soul" far fewer times in the New American Standard Version and in most other translations, including the New King James Version, than it is in the King James Version. Were they going as far as they dared to in correcting the King James Version?
The way "soul" is understood and used today in English (an inter undying PART of a person) makes putting the word "soul" in a translation for the English people today be a false and deliberately misleading translation; for it makes it where today's English reader cannot know what God said, and will understand only what the prejudiced outlook the translators wanted their readers to understand WHEN THE WORD "SOUL" IS UNDERSTOOD AS IT IS USED TODAY. Without much study of Bible words, which most Bible reader will never do, they cannot know what God said to them when they read the word "soul" and will think that the outlook of the translator, which seems to be somewhat prejudice, is the word of God. God's word has been deliberately replaced with the teaching of man [Matthew 15:9] in a way that will have more influence on our conception of what our nature is and the nature of all living beings than any other question.
Is the immortal "soul" [nehphesh] in the blood? Is a part of a person that many say it lives after the death of the body in the blood of both men and animals? Leviticus 17:10-15. In only six verses nehphesh is used ten times.
"I will even set my face against that SOUL [person - nehphesh, used referring to man] that eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the LIFE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your SOULS: [nehphesh, used referring to man] for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the SOUL [nehphesh, used referring to man]. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No SOUL [nehphesh, used referring to man] of you shall eat blood...For it is the LIFE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] of all flesh; the blood of it is for the LIFE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] thereof; therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No SOUL [nehphesh, used referring to man] shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the LIFE [soul - nehphesh, used referring to animals] of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eats it shall be cut off. And every SOUL [nehphesh, used referring to man] that eats that which died of itself...he shall wash his clothes, and bath himself in water" In this passage, the King James Version translated the same word "soul" six times when it used referring to man and "life" four times when it used referring too animals. Can anyone not see how the translators picked when they wanted "nehphesh" to be "soul" and when they wanted "nehphesh" to be "life"? They could not let an immortal soul be in the blood nor could they let animals have an immortal soul. Their theology said a man had to have a soul, but an animal could not, and they were not willing that their reader see that the word "nehphesh" is used referring to both, and that both do not have a soul but are a soul.
The vanishing use of soul in Leviticus 17:10-15.
Leviticus 17:10-15 New Revised Standard Version. "If anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens who reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that PERSON [nehphesh] who eats blood, and will cut that PERSON [nehphesh] off from the people. For the LIFE [nehphesh] of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your LIVES [nehphesh] on the altar; for, as LIFE, [nehphesh] it is the blood that makes atonement. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel: No PERSON [nehphesh] among you shall eat blood...For the LIFE [nehphesh] of every creature-its blood is its LIFE; [nehphesh] therefore I have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the LIFE [nehphesh] of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off. All PERSONS, [nehphesh] citizens or aliens, who eat what dies of itself...shall wash their clothes, and bathe themselves in water."
Leviticus 17:10-15 New International Version. "Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-I will set my face against that PERSON [nehphesh] who eats blood and will cut HIM [nehphesh] off from his people. For the LIFE [nehphesh] of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for YOURSELVES [nehphesh] on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonements for one's LIFE [nehphesh]. Therefore I say to the Israelites, 'None of YOU [nehphesh] may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood'...because the LIFE [nehphesh] of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the LIFE [nehphesh] of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off. ANYONE [nehphesh], whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water'."
MAN "BECAME A LIVING BEING" Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make MAN in Our image.'" Not "Let Us make the soul of man in Our Image" Genesis 2:7. "Then the Lord formed MAN of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; [not breathed into the body an immortal undying no substance soul, but the breath of life, which both men and animals have], and MAN became a living being." Not a body + an immortal soul, but "a living being." Not two beings, a body being with an inter soul being living in it.
The body of dust + the breath of life = a living soul [a living being - nehphesh], Genesis 2:7, New American Standard. The breath of life without the body would not be a person or animal. It would not be a living being, not a nehphesh. ALL living creatures, whether they are animals or sea-dwelling creatures, are souls [nehpheshs].
MAN, not merely a body, is formed from the dust of the ground. MAN is in the image of God, not only an inter part of a person which has no substance. Adam might have loss possible immorality when he loss the tree of life, but this was not a loss of being made in the image of God.
The Bible says, "Man BECAME a living soul" is changed to, "Man OBTAINED a living soul" or "Man WAS GIVEN a soul." There is a world of difference in a person BEING a living soul and a person HAVING a soul. Both man and animals are a living soul. If the breath of life in his nostrils in Genesis 2:7 makes a person have an immortal part (spirit) living in him or her that cannot die, then "all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life" in Genesis 7:22 proves all beasts, birds, and fish have an immortal part (soul) living in them that cannot die, but that all, both man and animals that had "the breath of the spirit of life," died.
Animals ARE souls, not animals HAVE souls. In Genesis 1:20; 1:21; 1:24; 1:30, most translations try to hide this. WHY? Why is it "living creature" when used referring to animals and "soul" when used referring to a person? There is no excuse or defense for it. It is a deliberate attempt by the translators, who did not believe God's word as it is, to mislead; and all Bible teachers should point this out to all they teach [James 3:1]. If "the living soul" [nehphesh] is the immortal part of a person, then bugs, all sea creatures, all birds, and all animals have an immortal soul. "Living soul" is used more of these creatures than it is of man.
Passages in which soul [nehphesh] is speaking of animals being souls.
"The last two lines of verse 7 affirm that a person's life is God-given. God enables a person to breathe, and thus, to be alive, as he does other creatures (see Genesis 7:22). Some have tried to justify a threefold division of man into flesh (or body), soul, and spirit from Genesis 2:7. They equate dust with flesh or body, breath with spirit, and insist that the last phrase of the verse must be translated as 'a living soul.' However, this understanding reads more into the biblical text than it really says. (1) The Hebrew words for 'flesh' or 'body' and 'spirit' do not occur in this passage. (2) The Hebrew expression nehphesh chayyah, which some insist on translating 'a living soul,' is used of fish and marine life in Genesis 1:30; and beasts and birds in 2:19. If 'soul' means the eternal part of a person or the sum total of man's 'body' and 'spirit' in Genesis 2:7, it must mean the eternal part of a fish or the sum total of a fish's 'body' and 'spirit' in Genesis 1:20, 21; etc. (3) The flow of the context in Genesis 2:7 indicates that the word translated being in RSV (nehphesh) means the whole person. The author's emphasis is on the gift of life." John T, Willis, "The Living Word Commentary On the Old Testament - Genesis" Page 103-104, Sweet Publishing Company, 1979.
"Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, 'soul' refers to the whole person" Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Page 1245.
"A human being is a totality of being, not a combination of various parts and impulses. According to the Old Testament understanding, a person is not a body, which happens to possess a soul. Instead, a person is a living soul...Because of God's breath of life; the man became 'a living being' (Gen. 2:7). A person, thus is a complete totality, made up of human flesh, spirit (best understood as "the life-force'), and nephesh (best understood as "the total self' but often translated as 'soul')." Holman Bible Dictionary, Page 61.
"There is not dualism in the sense of separation, as though there could be full man either as body alone or as soul alone...together they make up the one man" International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Page 134.
"A consideration of EVERY passage in which these terms are used leads us to the consideration that the term 'soul' is a term that was applied in the Bible to every being that normally has sensory capacities (life), whether or not they have that capacity when the term is used referring to them. For example, one might see a body of a dead person and say, 'That poor soul is dead.' The Bible uses the term that way, even as we do, and it has nothing at all to do with the immorality or mortality of the soul. It simply means that the PERSON (the one who HAD life-soul-sensory capacity) is dead." T. Pierce Brown, "Soul and Spirit" Gospel Advocate, June 14, 1979.
1. Nehphesh (soul): When nehphesh is used referring only to animals is translated nine different ways in the King James Version.
2. Nehphesh (soul): When it is used referring to BOTH Animals and Man is translated in three different ways.
3. Nehphesh (soul): When it has the animal appetites and desires of Man is translated in five different ways. [1] Soul, [2] pleasure, [3] lust, [4] appetite, [5] and greedy.
CAN WHATEVER IS INTENDED BY THE HEBREW WORD "NEHPHESH" DIE? If it can, then whatever "nehphesh" is translated into IS something that can die. If the many words that "nehphesh" is translated into is something that can die, then the soul cannot be immortal and it can die. To say that "nehphesh" [soul] is immortal and cannot die makes the Bible be wrong repeatedly. If the soul [nehphesh] is immortal and cannot die, the writers of the Bible did not know it.
Summary: ABOUT ONE THIRD OF ABOUT 976 USES OF BOTH NEHPHESH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PSUKEE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEATH OF THE SOUL (PERSON). Some [nehpheshs - souls] are dead. Some are dying. Some are in fear of death. Some have those who are trying to kill them. Some are saved from death, etc. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE 870 TIMES IT IS USED, NOT ONE TIME IS IT SAID TO BE DEATHLESS OR IMMORTAL.
This clearly shows that the meaning of the Hebrew word nehphesh is something that is not immortal and that it can die or that it already is dead. There is no other word in the Bible which could be translated into Plato's immortal soul; therefore, the translators had to use this one and hide, the best they could, the fact that nehphesh can and does die.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Companion Bible, Appendix 13 says nehphesh [life - soul] is used:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just one of the many examples of the absurdity of the translations of nehphesh in the King James Version with the meaning of "soul" as it is used today, an invisible, no substance something in a person that no one has ever seen or can see and it is immortal and cannot die. "For mine enemies speak against me; and they that lay wait for my soul [nehphesh] take counsel together" [Psalms 70:10]. How could anyone lay in wait (ambush) for an undying invisible inter part of a person that no one can see and how could anyone kill something that cannot die that they could see it?
"DELIVER MY SOUL" [nehphesh] Psalms 17:13 in today's English would be "SAVE MY LIFE" [nehphesh].
Many more times "soul" [nehphesh] would only make sense if translated "life." To apply today's meaning, "an undying invisible inter part of man" makes many passages be total nonsense. Today's meaning of "soul" is very different from the meaning of nehphesh in Biblical times, which make "soul" be a mistranslation. When anyone reads the Bible and reads "soul" and knows only what the word "soul" means today, they cannot understand what God said. Many English translations use "soul" and "person" interchangeable. The Revised Standard uses "person" frequently where the King James used "soul." The problem is that most English readers would not know that when they say a "person" died, that they are hiding the fact that "person" [soul - nehphesh] is the same word that is translated "soul" in many places. Why did some translators do this? Was it because they did not believe an immortal "soul" can die, but a person can die? If the "soul" [soul - nehphesh] dies, it would not be immortal; therefore, they were forced to use "person" or "life" in many places to hide the fact from you that the nehphesh can die. THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO PUT "SOUL" WITH TODAY'S MEANING IN THE BIBLE WHERE IT IS NOT. If they had been consistent in translating, they would not have been able to put the doctrine of an undying soul in the Bible.
"The Lord of hosts has sworn by Himself [soul - nehphesh]" [Jeremiah 51:14]. By His own being or person. God "could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself [psukee - soul]" [Hebrews 6:13]. Not even the King James translators wanted God to have an invisible inter part that would live after the rest of Him was dead. God's nehphesh and man's nehphesh are their being, person, not just an invisible inter part of a person.
ALL THE OLD TESTAMENT WORDS, WHICH ARE TRANSLATED LIFE, SPIRIT, BREATH, OR SOUL, ARE ALL USED REFERRING TO BOTH PERSONS AND ANIMALS. EVERY WORD THAT IS USED TO PROVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL OR SPIRIT WOULD ALSO PROVE ALL BREATHING CREATURES HAVE AN IN IMMORTAL SOUL IF THEY PROVED A PERSON DOES.
[1] Nehphesh/soul-life: It is used to describe all living beings.
[2] Nshahmah: Is also used to describe all living being/breath of life: All living things that breathes [Used 24 times].
[3] Ruach/spirit-breath: Is also used to describe all living beings.
Ruach is translated nine ways in the King James Version. All nine words that ruach is translated into have meaning that are completely different and were completely different in 1611.
(1) Ruach is translated WIND [ruach - spirit] Translated wind about 84 times in the King James Version. Wind, breath, blast and air about one third of about 389 times ruach is used in the Old Testament.
(2) Ruach is translated BREATH [ruach - spirit].
(3) Ruach is translated SPIRIT [ruach].
(4) Ruach is translated BLAST [ruach - spirit] [2 Kings 19:7]. "BLAST [ruach - spirit] of your nostrils" [Exodus 15:8].
(5) Ruach is translated AIR [ruach - spirit]. "That no AIR [ruach - spirit] can come between them" [Job 41:16; 41:8].
(6) Ruach is translated MIND [ruach - spirit] [Genesis 26:35]. "A fool utters all his MIND [ruach - spirit]" [Proverbs 29:11].
(7) Ruach is translated COURAGE [ruach - spirit]. "Neither did there remain any more COURAGE [ruach - spirit] in them" [Joshua 2:11].
(8) Ruach is translated COOL [ruach]. "Walking in the garden in the COOL [ruach - spirit] of the day" [Genesis 3:8].
(9) Ruach is translated ANGER [ruach - spirit]. "Their ANGER [ruach - spirit] was abated" [Judges 8:3].
Why did the translators translate the word "ruach" into "spirit" in one place and "blast" or "wind" in others? THE MEANING OF "SPIRIT" AS IT WAS USED IN 1611 AND TODAY (AN IMMORTALITY NO SUBSTANCE SOMETHING IN A PERSON) IS NOT A THIRTY-FIRST COUSIN TO "WIND" OR "BREATH," YET THE TRANSLATORS, AT WILL, TRANSLATED THE SAME WORD INTO TWO THINGS THAT ARE WORLDS APART. IF THE SAME WORD HAD TWO MEANINGS THAT WERE WORLDS APART, HOW COULD THE HEBREW PEOPLE KNOW WHEN IT WAS ONE AND WHEN IT WAS THE OTHER? HOW COULD THE TRANSLATORS KNOW? THEY COULD NOT. They had to put their theology into the Bible even if they could not be consistent. How can anyone reading the Kings James Version know anger, cool, courage, air, mind, breath, wind, blast and spirit are the same thing? Most English reader today would not know that "wind" and "spirit" are indiscriminately translated from the same word and almost without exception today's reader would understand "spirit" to be an immortal soul, but would never understand "wind" to be an immortal soul. Those who do not read Hebrew are misled by such indiscriminately translations.
Summary: NEHPHESH, NSHAHMAH AND RUACH ARE SOMETHING THAT BOTH A PERSON AND AN ANIMAL HAVE IN COMMON AND ARE SOMETHING THAT CAN AND DOES DIE. Both an animal and a man ARE a soul, a living being of this earth. Neither animals nor a person HAS a soul, an immortal inter part that cannot die and will live after the death of the animal or person it is in.
Different characteristics of a person, not different parts of a person that can live without each other, but a person looked at from different points of view.
Soul - How nehphesh and psukee are translated in nine different version and in different verses.
Psukee is used 106 times and is the only word translated soul in the New Testament (translated soul only 58 of the 106 times it is used in the King James Version) and is the same word in Greek as nehphesh is in Hebrew. Both can and do die. "Lose his LIFE" Matthew 10:39. "Save a SOUL from death" James 5:20. "To save LIFE or to destroy it." In Old English, soul, like ghost and charity, might have been a good translation then, but not today. Most of the times nehphesh and psukee are translated "soul," even those who believe a person is two beings in one have to admit it is referring to the earthly person, or life, or being; but today the English word "soul" has come to mean an inter unseen part of a person, which will live after the person is dead. THEREFORE, WHEN THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW THIS READ THE BIBLE, THEY ARE MISLED WHEN PSUKEE IS TRANSLATED "SOUL." No word in the Bible means "an immortal inter part of a person that cannot die."
Which one is it? A mortal being that can die, or an immortal being that cannot die? If there were a part of a person called "soul" that is immortal and cannot die, it is strange that both the Old Testament and the New Testament repeatedly speak of the death of this soul that cannot die.
Psukee is translated "soul" and "life" interchangeably, and sometimes in the same verse. See Matthew 16:25-26 where the same word is inconsistently translated two times "soul," and two times "life" in the King James Version; but corrected in the American Standard Version and most other versions where all four times the same word is translated "life." "In exchange for his life." The parallel passage in Luke 9:25 says, "and lose or forfeit his own self" American Standard Version. "Yet lose...his very self" New International Version. "Lose...themselves" New Revised Standard Version. Human language could not be any clearer that Christ is speaking of the whole of a person, and not just some internal unseen part of a person. If the immortal soul doctrine were true, a person could not lose his soul if his soul can never die.
Those who say a person has a soul that is immortal and cannot die make the Bible contradict itself, for the Bible says repeatedly that the nehphesh [Old Testament] psukee [New Testament] can die and never says a person has a part that is called "soul" that is immortal. Christ "laid down His LIFE [psukee - life or soul] for us, and we ought to lay down our LIVES [psukee - life or soul] for the brethren" 1 John 3:16. "To give His LIFE [psukee - life or soul] a ransom for many" Matthew 20:28.
PSUKEE: A MORTAL BEING? OR AN IMMORTAL BEING? Psukee is translated life, strength, us, he, heart, heartily, you, and mind. These all have a reference to this life and not to a soul that has no substance. How could the same word mean a mortal being some of the time and an immortal inter part of a mortal being some of the time? How would the translators know when it was one and when it was the other?
Psukee [life] is the natural life from Adam. It is the physical life common to all living creatures and is never said to be eternal. All living creatures [animals, fish, man] by natural birth have psukee [life] from birth to death. It is never coupled with the adjective eternal or everlasting. THE ONLY WORD THAT IS TRANSLATED SOUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS TRANSLATED SOUL ONLY ABOUT ONE-HALF OF THE TIMES IT IS USED.
Zoee [life] [Wigram, Page 339 - Strong's word 2227, 'Zoopoico...make alive, give life, quicken'] is a gift of life from Christ to those that believe, the life He gives only to those who are His. No one is born with it and the lost never have it. It refers the eternal life given by Christ in all but about ten of about one hundred thirty times it is used. "The first man Adam become a living soul (psukee - living being). The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" [1 Corinthians 15:45]. Only those who are born again have zoee [life] in Christ. See Zoee life in chapter two, Life or Death.
The many words the translators used to translate "psukee" are nouns or pronouns and refer to (1) God (2) or to man (3) or to an animal, not to an immortal no subject part of God, a person or an animal. The person or animal is sometimes dying and is sometimes dead. This one word, which is a common noun, is translated into many nouns, changed into a proper noun and often is changed to a pronoun, then translated by many pronouns just as "nehphesh" is in the Old Testament. The different translations do not agree on when it should be a noun or when it should be a pronoun.
[1] PASSAGES IN WHICH THE PSUKEE [soul] MEANS LIFE AND CAN DIE, BE KILLED, PERISH, BE DESTROYED.
[2] PASSAGES IN WHICH PSUKEE IS USED REFERRING TO PARTS OF THE HUMAN BODY.
[3] PASSAGES IN WHICH PSUKEE IS USED REFERRING TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. In Old English, and even today soul is used to mean person or life. A newspaper reporting a shipwreck in which fifty people drown would say, "Fifty souls were lost."
[4] PASSAGES IN WHICH PSUKEE APPLIES TO GOD OR CHRIST.
[5] PASSAGES IN WHICH THE PSUKEE IS USED IN SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. For notes on these see chapter eight. Those who believe in the Pagan doctrine of an immortal soul from birth and Hell have no plain statement. That they must make figurative language, metaphors and symbolic passage into literal statements SHOWS THE WEAKNESS OF THEIR BELIEF, that it is from man and not from God. Figurative language and parables are made to be superior over plain statements, and clear language must be made to agree with what they think is said in the symbolic language.
PASSAGES THAT IN SOME WAY CONNECT THE SPIRIT [pneuma] TO THE HUMAN MIND.
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: In translations by those who believe a person has an immortal soul, why is the use of the word "soul" becoming used less? It was translated soul:
IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT: The Hebrew word translated soul [nehphesh] is used over 870 times in the Old Treatment, and the Greek work translated soul [psukee] is used 106 times. Both together about 976 times and were translated soul:
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: IS THE USE OF THE ENGLISH WORD "SOUL" AS A TRANSLATION OF PSUKEE DYING?
It is those who are members of churches that believe a person has an immortal soul that are little by little taking the word "soul" out of the Bible. WHY IS SOUL BEING USED LESS IN THE NEWER TRANSLATIONS? THE TRANSLATORS KNEW "SOUL" AS THE WORD IS USED TODAY IS NOT A TRANSLATION OF NEHPHESH OR PSUKEE.
In many of the 473 passages where nehphesh is translated "soul" in the Kings James, it is not in most other translations. A few of the many examples, which show why the numbers above are difficult in difficult translations.
The Hebrew people in the time Moses were reading this part of the Bible would have had no way to make a distinction in the life [soul - nehphesh] of animals or men. When the Jews read the Old Testament in Hebrew even today, there is no distinction between a person and or an animal being a soul-a living creature. Only in some modern translations is there a distinction AND THIS DISTINCTION IS BECAUSE MAN HAS CHANGED GOD'S WORD. God used the same word to describe both persons and animals. If this one word proves one is now immortal, it proves both are.
Summary: About one third of the words translated soul, nehphesh in the Old Testament, and psukee in the New Testament are associated with the destruction and death of the soul [life, nehphesh]. THIS IS AN INSOLUBLE PROBLEM FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVE TODAY'S THEOLOGY, WHICH SAYS THE SOUL CANNOT DIE. In other passages the psukee does thing that only this earthly body can do, things that an immortal soul that has no substance could not do. "And I will say to my soul [psukee], Soul [psukee], you have much goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink" [Luke 12:19]. A soul which has no substance could not use the much goods [substance] laid up for many years. A person, not a soul with no substance, can eat and drink of the substance he has lain up. ANOTHER DIFFICULT PROBLEM FOR THEM.
A bird's eye view [below] of the way psukee is translated in four versions shows that it is a living being, not an immortal no substance something. The translators wanted to put their immortal soul in the Bible, but they had a problem for if they had uniformly translated psukee into "soul," in some passages their immortal soul would have been subject to death and in other passages it would be dead.
(1) King James (2) New Revised Standard (3) American Standard (4) New International
All the words used in the four translations [life, lives, yourself, yourselves, us, mind, minds, you, I, him, heart, heartily, everyone, persons, disciples, creatures, all, me, flesh, being, anyone, alive, and man] ALL HAVE A REFERENCE TO THE HUMAN PERSON, NOT TO A NO SUBSTANCE INTER PART OF A PERSON.
Psukikos: natural [earthly].
THE SOUL OR THE SPIRIT IS NOT THE SPIRITUAL BODY THAT WE WILL HAVE AFTER THE RESURRECTION.
The image of Christ, the spiritual bodies we will have after the resurrection is not some inter invisible no substance something that will fit within the image of Adam and not be seen. WE ARE NOW A SOUL [living being] IN THE IMAGE OF ADAM, BUT WE WILL NOT BE A SOUL [living being] IN THE IMAGE OF ADAM AFTER THE RESURRECTION. All animals are souls [living beings-Hebrew nehphesh-Greek psukee] but they will never have a spiritual body. In commenting on "the natural man" in 1 Corinthians 2:14, Guy N. Woods says, "...the soulish man, since the adjective 'natural' translates a form of the Greek word for soul, which may be expressed in English as psychical. Thus, this usage is supported by etymology and required by the context. See, especially, Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 1:18-28 and 2:6-16." Gospel Advocate, 1985, November 21. "Natural" is translated from "psuchikos." "Psuchikos" the adjective form of "psukee" is used six times in the New Testament.
The adjective form of a noun never has a meaning that is totally different from the meaning of the noun. Both the noun [psukee] and the adjective [psuchikos] are the earthly, natural (soulish) person, the image of Adam. If I believed the psukee [soul] was an immaterial invisible part of a person, I would hope no one would ever see its adjective form in the above six passages.
A living soul, the earthly being in the image of Adam will be changed to a spiritual body in the image of Christ at the resurrection.
This change from the image of Adam's natural soul body to the spiritual body in the image of Christ, from mortal to immortal, will occur at the Resurrection, NOT AT DEATH. No one now has the spiritual body.
If a person has a soul that is now immortal, it cannot be mortal; therefore, it cannot put on immortality. What do some think is now mortal and will put on immortality? If a person has a soul that is now immortal, it could only be the body that will put on immortality. It is the person that will put on immortality at the resurrection, not a part of a person that was immortal from birth that could never be mortal. "And just as WE HAVE BORNE the image of the earthy, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR the image of the heavenly" [1 Corinthians 15:49].
Summary: A "LIVING SOUL" IS THE EARTHLY BODY OF FLESH AND BLOOD IN THE IMAGE OF ADAM, NOT THE "SPIRITUAL BODY" WHICH WILL BE IN THE IMAGE OF CHRIST. There is a difference in "a living soul," which we now are; and a "spiritual body," which we will be after the resurrection but are not at this time. The "living soul," being, life or creature that is in the "image of Adam" is not the "spiritual body" ["image of Christ"] that we will have. THIS CLEARLY SAYS AFTER THE RESURRECTION, WE WILL NOT BE A "LIVING SOUL," but changed to a "spiritual body"; therefore, a "living soul" and the "spiritual body" are different things. One ("The living soul") belongs to this life; the other (a "spiritual body") will belong to life after the resurrection. They are opposite to each other; a person cannot be both simultaneously. Many preachers today say, "Save you soul" which is saying, "Save your 'image of Adam,'" or, "Save your earthly flesh and blood body." While we are a "living soul," we cannot be a "spiritual body." After the resurrection, when we shall have been changed to a "spiritual body," we will no longer be a "living soul," no longer be an earthly creature in the image of Adam. IF THE "LIVING SOUL" WAS AN IMMORTAL PART OF A PERSON THAT WOULD LIVE FOREVER, THAT PERSON WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE IMAGE OF ADAM, NOT THE IMAGE OF CHRIST. CAN ANYONE HAVE THE IMAGE OF ADAM IN HEAVEN? NO. WE ARE A "LIVING SOUL" ONLY WHILE WE ARE ALIVE IN THIS WORLD. IN HEAVEN WE WILL HAVE A "SPIRITUAL BODY" AND WILL NOT BE A SOUL. Adam was, and we now are "a living soul-being"; but Adam did not, and we do not have an immortal "spiritual body" [not unto the resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:53]. "It is sown a natural body: it is raised a spiritual body" ["Greek physical" body. Footnote in American Standard Version]. "It is sown a physical body" [1 Corinthians 15:44]. "The dead shall be raised incorruptible" [1 Corinthians 15:52]. Paul could not have said any stronger that we will be raised "a spiritual body" [1 Corinthians 15:44] "incorruptible" [1 Corinthians 15:52], not with the physical body we now have. THE PHYSICAL BODY IS THE "LIVING SOUL" BODY WE NOW HAVE AND IT IS NOT THE BODY THAT WILL BE RAISED. If we are raised with a body that is a spiritual body and is incorruptible, we could not at the same time be raised with an earthly body that is a corruptible body. McCord's translation, printed by Freed-Hardeman College says, "And the dead shall be raised immortal" [1 Corinthians 15:53]. Paul says that at the time those who are asleep in Christ shall be raised incorruptible, that we who are not asleep shall "be changed" [1 Corinthians 15:51]. All will be raised from the dead at the resurrection, and those in Christ will have a new body not of flesh. WE WILL NOT BE A "LIVING SOUL" AFTER THE RESURRECTION. THE "SOUL" [the image of Adam], WHICH MANY SAY WE MUST SAVE FOR THEY THINK IT IS THE ONLY PART OF US THAT WILL BE IN HEAVEN, WILL NOT EXIST THEN. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A PART OF US THAT WILL BE IN HEAVEN. IT IS OUR WHOLE SELF THAT WE MUST SAVE, NOT JUST AN "IMMATERIAL INVISIBLE" INTER PART OF OURSELF. WE WILL NOT HAVE THE IMAGE OF ADAM, the earthly "living soul," IN HEAVEN. WE WILL NOT BE A SOUL IN THE IMAGE OF ADAM AS WE ARE NOW, BUT WE, WILL BE THE SAME PERSON WE NOW ARE. HOW IS IT THAT MANY CANNOT SEE THAT WHEN THEY SAY "SAVE YOUR SOUL" THEY ARE SAYING "KEEP THE IMAGE OF ADAM" [the earthly body]? DO THEY WANT TO BE RAISED WITH AN EARTHY BODY IN THE IMAGE OF ADAM OR THE SPIRITUAL BODY IN THE IMAGE OF CHRIST?
There are many, the Church of God, many premillennialists and others that believe the earthly body, the image of Adam, will be raised and we will live on this earth forever, not in Heaven, that the earthly body will restored to be like Adam before he sinned. I know of no passage that says Adam's body was different before and after he sinned, but if it were the rest of mankind never had the body he had before he sinned, therefore, all but Adam would have to be raised with a body different from this body we now have. There is a mountain of writing on how God will be able to restore the same body with the same particles of matter it now has. All the matter that is in the body of a person that lives to be old would be many bodies, a mountain of matter. T. P Connelly, in The Connelly Field Debate says, "The resurrection is, therefore, a reunion of spirit and matter, and this being true, the same particles of matter in the same body are no more necessary in order to a reunion, than that the same particles should remain at all times the same here to perpetuate the union." Then is would be the spirit coming back from Heaven or Hell and creating a new earthly body, not a resurrection of the body, not a resurrection of anything, not a resurrection of the body we now have and not a resurrection of a soul that would not be dead. Because the natural body, the image of Adam, will not be raised, this mountain of writing is about nothing. I can understand why those in the Church Of God are concerned about what particles of matter the earthly body will be raised with, but he is an evangelist in the Christian Church, and I cannot understand why he thinks a soul which he thinks has no substance and will live forever in Heaven without this body must come back to earth and make itself a new body, but many who say they do not believe this body will ever be in Heaven think that we now have an immortal part that must put on the earthly body at the resurrection.
Synonyms for "soul" that are used in 1 Corinthians 15: earth, earthly [dust], corruption, natural body, mortal, image of Adam, flesh and blood.
HOW CAN DEATH BE A SEPARATION OF BODY AND SOUL WHEN:
Mike Willis says a spiritual body is not an ethereal body any more than Christ's was a shadowy, ghostly, ethereal body. But rather, a spiritual body is a body that is suited for the spiritual world, which God has planned for mankind. He says just as certainly as there is a natural body, there will also be a spiritual body; and one is no more uncertain than the other, and just as certainly as we have a body adapted to life in the world we now live in, so also shall we have a body that will be adapted to life in the world to come. A Commentary On Paul's First Epistle To the Corinthians, 1979. He has clearly said the "spirit" he thinks we now have is not the "spiritual body" which we shall have in Heaven. The "spirit" could then only be a shadowy, ghostly, ethereal body, which he said Christ did not have. A spiritual body is not just a thin air, no substance, ghostly something; but we know not what. THE SOUL IS THE NATURAL BODY, THE IMAGE OF ADAM, A LIVING BEING, THE EARTHY BODY THAT WILL DIE AND CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
B. W. Johnson, Author of "People's New Testament With Notes" 1898. "'So also in the resurrection of the dead.' On earth there was a body adapted to earthly condition. At death that earthly body was 'sown' or planted in the earth. 'It is sown in corruption,' or subject, to corruption. 'It is raised in incorruption...It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.' Our earthly bodies, like that of the earthly Adam, are of earth; the new body, 'the house not made with hands,' is in the image of the heavenly man, the glorified body of Jesus Christ, for 'as we have borne the image of the earthly, [a living soul-living being] so shall we also bear the image of the heavenly.' Then, to silence forever those who expect a sensual heaven in which they shall abide in the flesh eternally, he exclaims, 'Now, this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.' This, in its connection, can only have one meaning. Flesh and blood bodies [a living soul-living being], bodies made of corruptible earthly materials, are not compatible with a home in the world of redeemed and glorified spirits. The soul's tenement, if it has one, must be adapted to the new conditions of being. Are we then denied a body in the future state? By no means. I may not be able to understand the nature of that body, because I have never seen such an existence, but I can accept the statements of the word of God and believe that it is exactly fitted to the happy sphere of glorified existence. It 'is a building of God,' it is made 'as it has pleased him,' it is 'a spiritual body,' it is 'incorruptible,' it is 'immortal,' it is after the image of the heavenly man, and 'our vile bodies [a living soul-living being] are changed into the likeness of his glorified body.'" Page 413, 1891, "Christ and the Future Life" at: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bjohnson/etc/CATFL.HTM
"The first man, Adam, was made a living soul. Gen. 2:7. From him came our natural life. The last Adam, Christ, of whom Adam was a type. A quickening spirit. By giving life to the dead, and imparting spiritual existence. Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual. The first Adam came before the second Adam. The natural body, which proceeds from the first Adam is our tabernacle first; after this life comes the 'spiritual body,' which the second Adam gives. The first man is of the earth. Was fashioned out of the earth. Genesis 2:7. The second man is the Lord who came from heaven. As is the earthy. All have earthly bodies, like that of Adam. As is the heavenly. When we are raised to heaven we shall have spiritual bodies like Christ's." B. W. Johnson, "People's New Testament With Notes" pages 124-125.
Carl Holladay, "To the first Adam, God gave the first physical body: Adam became a living being (Gen. 2:7). To the second Adam, or the last Adam, Christ, God gave the first spiritual body. Their essential difference (and the Greek makes this clear) is that the former was essentially life-receiving, whereas the latter was life-giving. It is this that renders one physical and the other spiritual. It was the last Adam upon whom, and within whom the Spirit of God dwelt; by raising him from the dead. God breathed into history a second breath of life, and vividly confirmed another mode of existence, which wholly transcended physical life: spiritual life. But, it succeeds the physical instead of replacing the physical: it is not the spiritual, which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. Spiritual life is the hope which the resurrection of the last Adam confirmed and will eventually provide; it is inaccessible to those who are still in the physical body." "The First Letter of Paul to The Corinthians," Page 209, Abilene Christian University Press.
J. W. McGarvey, "The life principle of Adam is soul, and he was formed of the earth: the life principle of Christ is spiritual. He was in heaven (John 1:10 and from thence entered the world and became flesh (John 1:14; 3:13, 21; Phil. 2:6-8; John 1:1-3; Luke 1:35). Now, as the two heads differ, so do the two families, and each resembles it's head; the earthly progeny of Adam having earthly natures, and the spiritual progeny of Christ having spiritual and heavenly natures. But in both families the earthly nature come first, and the spiritual children wait for their manifestation, which is the very thing about which the apostle has been talking, for it comes when they are raised from the dead (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:22, 23; 2 Cor. 5:1-10)." Standard Bible Commentary, Page 158, 1916, Standard Publishing Company.
Dr. Lange, "The expression living soul, as used in Genesis, is often taken to indicate an order of being superior to the brute, and is the text of many an argument to prove the immortality of the soul. The incorrectness of this assumption will be readily seen by referring to Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, and elsewhere, in which passages the words translated 'living soul' are used referring to the entire lower creation. They are used indifferently of man and beast to express animal life in general; and it is in this light the apostle uses them as the very course of his argument shows. Adam is spoken of as a living soul, not to prove his immortality, but rather his mortality" Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:45.
ELEVEN DEFINITIONS OF "SOUL" AND EIGHTEEN DEFINITIONS OF "SPIRIT" AS GIVEN BY VINE.
"Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old And New Testament Words" by W. E. Vine is one of, if not the best and most used and accepted Lexicon in use. Therefore, I will use his definitions of "soul" and "spirit" as a standard work that is used to uphold the doctrine of an immortal soul.
[1] W. E. Vine on psukee [SOUL] Page 588.
He applies only two [b] and [c] in his list to what he thinks is an immortal soul. ALL THE OTHERS [a, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j] ARE USED REFERRING TO MEN AND ANIMALS, NOT TO AN INTER BEING THAT LIVES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PERSON OR ANIMAL.
[2] W. E. VINE ON PNEUMA [SPIRIT]: "Pneuma primarily denotes 'the wind' ['to breathe, blow']; also 'breath.'" W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old and New Testament Words, Page 593. [Note: While they are men who have learned more than most on Bible words; and we can learn from them, they are still just as human, just as uninspired as other men are, just as subject to err and be wrong, they are still men and hold to such things as Calvinism: He says, "Adam died on the day he disobeyed God. Genesis 2:17, and hence all mankind are born in the same spiritual condition" W. E. Vine, Page 149, New Testament; and like the men who have made translations of the Bible, their views sometime show up in their work, intentional or unintentional; and we must not believe there can be no error in even the best lexicon or translations. They all have some, and no lexicon can be taken as law. McCord says they can be and are sometimes wrong. See "Lexicons Can Be Wrong" McCord, Guardian of Truth. Page 448; 1996]. In the early translations, one Greek word would be translated into many English words [an example-apollumi was translated into eight English words in the King James Version]. A Lexicon wrote later would give all eight English words as the meaning of the one Greek word. Lexicons sometimes define a Greek word more by the way that word is used in the English translations than that by the way it was used in the Greek New Testament, if the English translations translate it 8 or 10 different ways, the lexicons give 8 or 10 different meanings of the one Greek word. The question is, why did the early translations use many words to translate one word? By being able to translate one Greek word into many English words gives them the ability to make any verse not say something they did not want it to say. One word, nehphesh, is rendered with about forty-four different words in the King James Old Testament.
W. E. VINE'S EIGHTEEN WAYS "SPIRIT" IS USED: They are almost the same as his "soul" - see above. Of the eighteen ways Vine says the word "spirit" is used in the Bible, he says sixteen of them are not used with reference to an undying "immaterial, invisible part of man" [A through R]. C and D are the only two of the eighteen different ways he says spirit is used, which he used to prove a person is a two-fold being, and they do not do it.
W. E. Vine's gives eight passages in [c] and [d] to prove a person has in immortal part.
[1]. HIS FIRST PASSAGE: Luke 8:55 "AND HER SPIRIT RETURNED." W. E. Vine says pneuma (soul) is "the natural life of the body," Page 588. It means her life returned. W. E. Vine says, "The spirit may be recognized as the life principle bestowed on man by God, the soul as the resulting life constituted in the individual, the body being the material organism animated by soul and spirit" Page 589. He points out that man as he is now can have no life without the body. After the resurrection the saved will have a new body. The loss are not said to put on a new glorious spiritual body (2 Thessalonians 4:23ff, 1 Corinthians 15:43), or to have immortality, which they must have if they will live forever in torment. Pneuma-spirit is also translated "life" in Revelation 13:15. VINE MAKES A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT, BUT SAYS BOTH ARE AN "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN." Does he think people have two "immaterial, invisible part(s)"? Is this proof that, as McCord says, "Lexicons Can Be Wrong"? W. E. Vine also applied "A building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens" [2 Corinthians 5:3-4] to both the soul and the spirit, but he and many others believe the soul and the spirit is not the same. Do they think we have two "buildings from God, one for the soul and one for the spirit?
[2]. W. E. VINE'S SECOND PASSAGE: "RECEIVE MY SPIRIT" Acts 7:59. Also see Luke 23:46. If he were asking for his spirit to be received at the resurrection, for this is when we will be received in Heaven, then where is his spirit before the resurrection? For this to prove the spirit is alive from death unto the Resurrection, his spirit would have to be received by God at death. In public prayers, those who believe in Abraham's bosom ask God to give them a home in Heaven if they have been faithful unto death [receive our soul, i.e., our person, life, being, as Hamilton, W. E. Vine and Thayer says "pneuma" is used]. Stephen was asking God to receive him at the judgment. Those who teach we go to Abraham's bosom do not believe we are caught up to Heaven at death so why are they using this to prove what happens to us at death when they do not believe God receives us into Heaven at the time of our death? To make this teach we have an immortal soul, which does not die when the body dies, they must [1] make soul and spirit be the same thing [2] then contrary to their belief about Abraham's bosom, that no one will be in Heaven before the resurrection; they send Stephen to Heaven at his death. Is it because they do not have any real proof, and so must misuse scripture to make it sound as though they do have proof, and even misuse them in a way that is contradictory to their own belief. We are not told that Stephen went to Heaven or to Abraham's bosom, but we are told clearly that he "fell asleep" [Acts 7:60]. Maybe they think Stephen is asleep in Heaven or Abraham's bosom. If the real Stephen were the spirit, then what was the "he" that "fell asleep" [Acts 7:60]? The "he" that fell asleep is Stephen, not just an earthly body that will never be in Heaven.
Stephen said, "LAY NOT THIS SIN TO THEIR CHARGE" [Acts 7:60]. The book of Job was inspired, but the speeches of his three friends were not inspired, and much in their speeches is not true. See "Job" By Homer Hailey and "Guide to Bible Study" by J. W. McGarvey. Was Stephen speaking by inspiration, or was Luke only inspired to write what Stephen said, just as the writer of Job was inspired to write the uninspired speeches of Job's friends? The question is "what did he ask God to do, and when was he asking God to do it"? "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge?" [Acts 7:60]. This shows he had love even to those who were doing him harm as he should, but what he was asking could not be unless they believed, repented, and were baptized. There is no other way that God could not lay this sin to their charge, or the death of Christ would not have been needed. Therefore, God could not do what Stephen was asking. Stephen was not speaking by inspiration when he said this, for if he were, he would not have been inspired to ask God to do something He could not do. Christ said, "Father, into your hands I commit My spirit: and having said this, He breathed His last" [Luke 23:46]. ISAIAH 53:12 IN THE KING JAMES VERSION "BECAUSE HE HATH POURED OUT HIS SOUL UNTO DEATH," IS "BECAUSE HE POURED OUT HIMSELF TO DEATH" IN THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION, AND "BECAUSE HE POURED OUT HIS LIFE UNTO DEATH" IN THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. CHRIST GAVE HIS LIFE FOR US, NOT A NO SUBSTANCE SOMETHING THAT ACCORDING TO TODAY'S THEOLOGY COULD NOT DIE AND WAS ALIVE IN "HELL" IN THE THREE DAYS THAT HIS BODY WAS IN THE GRAVE. If Christ did not really give up His life, if He were as much alive as He was before He came to earth there was no resurrection. He did not die for us. We are still in our sins with no hope. "FOR YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO SHEOL" [Psalms 16:10]. "Because you will not abandon me to the grave" New International Version. Quoted in the New Testament, "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT LEAVE MY SOUL UNTO HADES" [Acts 2:27 and 31]. "In hell" in the King James Version. Christ gave His life for our sins. Sheol is the grave. He died our death and went to the grave and was raised from the grave by the Father. He was not abandon to the grave.
[3]. ONE OF W. E. VINE'S PASSAGE: that he used to prove a person has an "immaterial, invisible part of man." "Supposed that they beheld a spirit" Luke 24:37-39. This is what they [as men] thought based on their fear, and was not based on inspiration. The two parallel account of this says phantom [Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49]. Strong [Page 1006] says this word is not pneuma [spirit] #4151, but "phantasma" #5326 [also #5324]; "A [mere] show...i.e. specter [a hunting vision]" When Christ walked on the water is the one time this word (plantasma) is used in the Bible, and is translated "ghost" in the American Standard Version and most others. It is translated "a phantom" by Marshall and in the "Christian Bible." The "Englishman Greek Concordance," Page 783 says, "Lit. A phantom." These disciples seem to have believed they were seeing a ghost or phantom; and like these disciples, some today believe in ghosts, spooks, haunted houses and such things. This maybe the only time their thin air with no substance ghost is in the New Testament, and then it was only what these disciples thought they were seeing, and not what they did see. Spirits, God, Christ, Angels have a body, and mankind after judgment will have a body, and are more than just thin air; but not two bodies with two opposite natures both at the same time. THE USE OF THIS PASSAGE TO PROVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL MAKES THE PROOF BE BASED ON A LIE, ON WHAT THE DISCIPLES THOUGHT THEY WERE SEEING, NOT ON WHAT THEY DID SEE. Then what they thought they were seeing, a phantasm or ghost must be changed to say they were seeing "The immaterial, invisible part of man" which W. E. Vine does not seem to know whether it was an invisible "soul" or an invisible "spirit" they were seeing, but it was not very invisible for they were seeing it. Christ said to them that He was not a spirit, not a phantom or ghost that has no body that they thought He was, that He was flesh and blood. WHY DID VINE TRY TO USE AN UNINSPIRED STATEMENT, MADE BY MEN IN FEAR, WHO WERE NOT SEEING WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE SEEING, TO PROVE A DIVINE TRUTH? This passage says nothing about a person having an immortal invisible soul that he used it to prove. Does he think they were inspired to believe a lie and that this lie becomes truth, but only after he changes this "phantom" to a "soul"? And that this "immaterial, invisible part of man" is just air, and it has no kind of substance or no body of any kind; and that a spiritual body is no body at all, with just nothing to it? Yet, these disciples thought they were seeing something that W. E. Vine says is invisible and although what they were seeing was not invisible, he used it to prove a person has an invisible part in him. MOST WHO BELIEVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL DO NOT BELIEVE A SOUL CAN BE SEEN, BUT THEY WILL USE THIS TO PROVE THESE MEN WERE SEEING A SOUL THAT THEY SAY CANNOT BE SEEN.
[4]. W. E. VINE'S: He used 2 Corinthians 5:5 to prove a person has an "immaterial, invisible part of man." In 2 Corinthians 5:3-4 we are unclothed while we are in the earthly house, but will be clothed in heaven. Nothing is said in this about a person being a dual being while in the earthly house. IF IT WERE AS VINE SAYS, THAT THIS CLOTHING IS "A NEVER-DYING SPIRIT" IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO BE UNCLOTHED. IF THIS CLOTHING WERE OUR SPIRIT, TO BE "UNCLOTHED" OR "NAKED" WOULD BE TO NOT HAVE A SPIRIT. He adds "disembodied" to get his immaterial soul.
2 Corinthians 5:1-8 (1) "For WE know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved [if our earthly body be dead], WE have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens [a new immortal body]. (2) For verily in this WE groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; [wanting to be with Christ in Heaven and clothed with our immortal bodies] (3) if so be that being clothed [with a new spiritual immortal body] WE shall not be found naked [not be dead, not have the life Christ gives to them that obey Him]. (4) For indeed WE that are in this tabernacle [our earthly body] do groan, being burdened: [in this life we have persecutions, sickness, death; but most of all a longing to be with Christ] not for that WE would be unclothed, [Not that we want the sleep of death before we put on immortal life at the resurrection. To be "unclothed" is not to have a body, not an earthly or spiritual body from death unto the resurrection; It is to be asleep without a body waiting to wake up at the resurrection and "put on immortality." (1) We are NOW clothed with the earthly body. (2) We WILL BE unclothed, asleep without a body, from death to the resurrection. (3) We LONG TO BE clothed with our immortal bodies in Heaven.] but that WE would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life [that this life on earth may be replaced with life in Heaven with an immortal body]. (5) Now he that wrought US for this very thing is God, who gave unto US the earnest of the Spirit. (6) Being therefore, always of good courage, and knowing that, while WE are at home in the body, [while we are living on this earth] WE are absent from the Lord [not immortal in Heaven with Christ] (7) (for WE walk by faith, not by sight): (8) WE are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord [willing to change this mortal body for an immortal body, and be in Heaven with Christ]." It is not the "soul" which will be naked after death; it is the whole person. Those who believe the soul is an inter part of a person, which will be alive after dead, BELIEVE THE SAME SOUL WE HAVE NOW IS THE SAME SOUL WE WILL HAVE AFTER DEATH, AND THE SAME SOUL WE WILL HAVE IN HEAVEN; FOR THEY BELIEVE "The immaterial, invisible part of man"-W. E. Vine IS JUST AS IMMORTAL NOW AS IT WILL BE AFTER THE RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT, JUST AS IMMORTAL NOW WHILE WE ARE ON EARTH AS IT WILL BE AFTER WE ARE IN HEAVEN. The soul being naked after death does not fit into what many believe, and makes no sense if you believe a person now has the immortal soul that he will always have; and that it is only this "immaterial, invisible part of man" that will live forever in Heaven or Hell. A person being "disembodied" is not in the Bible, and therefore is a doctrine of man. He adds, "disembodied" and makes it equal to "unclothed," or "naked." He had to change Paul's words to get his immaterial immortal soul. Most Protestants believe the soul goes to Heaven or Hell at death, therefore, a soul being "disembodied" does not fit with what most Protestants believe. The Catholic or the Protestant views do not have any room for an intermediate "disembodied" state from death to the resurrection. HIS "DISEMBODIED" SOUL FROM DEATH TO THE RESURRECTION IS SAYING THEY ARE BOTH WRONG FOR NEITHER PROTESTANTS NOR CATHOLICS DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A "DISEMBODIED" STATE FROM DEATH TO THE RESURRECTION. This passage is just another of the many passages that are an unexplainable passage to anyone with the Protestant view, but he did the best he could even if he has to be both unorthodox and change the Bible.
WHEN WILL WE BE AT HOME WITH CHRIST? At death or at the resurrection? "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: AND THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST; [all the dead shall rise at the same time at the coming of Christ] them that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: AND SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD" [1 THESSALONIANS 4:16-17]. We need to take care that we do not put an interpretation on any passage that will make it clash with other passages. It is evident that Paul did not expect the dead in Christ, those who have fallen asleep, to be with Christ before the resurrection.
Paul speaks of three states. (1) The earthly house or tabernacle [The present body]. (2) The naked or unclothed [The state he did not groan for]. (3) A building of God not made with hands eternal in the heavens [The clothed or resurrected body he wanted]. If the naked state is the "disembodied" soul in Heaven during the intermediate state, why does Paul not want to be "found naked." Did he not want to be in Heaven without the earthly body in the intermediate state? Did he not want to be in Heaven with Christ and all the saved unto the Judgment Day? No. Paul knew that he would not be with Christ unto the Resurrection if Christ did not return before his death. He knew that there is no life for the dead before the Resurrection. To be naked or unclothed is to have no life, not be alive in Heaven or Hell. State two (2), Vine's "disembodied" state is not believed by many Protestants who go from state one (1), this present body, to state three (3), a building not made with hands, which will be in Heaven at the moment of death.
The doctrine that the body is only a dwelling place of an immortal soul is not found in this passage, but many read it into it. Neither is the doctrine that a person's immortal soul leaves the body at death and goes immediately to Heaven without the resurrection and judgment. The passage says nothing about a "soul." Paul used "we" not "our soul." "BUT THAT WE WOULD BE CLOTHED UPON THAT WHAT IS MORTAL MAY BE SWALLOWED UP OF LIFE." The context this passage is in is speaking of the resurrection FROM THE DEAD [2 Corinthians 4:14 to 5:10]. Not on being alive after death without a body and having no need of the resurrection.
Paul says the same thing in Romans 8:23-24 and 2 "Corinthians 5:1-2.
WHEN WILL WE BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD? If "to be present with the Lord" is to take up our residence in Heaven at death, what is the "naked" and "unclothed" state of verses 3 and 4 and when is it? It is not while Paul was in "this tabernacle" or when he would be clothed in Heaven, therefore, neither in this life nor in Heaven is when he could be "unclothed." All will be absent from the body at death (the naked state), but no one will be present with the Lord in Heaven unto after the judgment. The intermediate nakedness from death unto the resurrection is something Paul did not want, something he DID NOT GROAN FOR, it is death, not any kind of life. From 1 Thessalonians 4:17 we learn that after death the only way we will be with the Lord is the resurrection.
Scott P. Wiley in "Eternal Torment or Annihilation" makes the grave be the place where man puts bodies but he says sheol is not the grave but a place under the earth where God puts the souls of the dead, some in one part of sheol are happy and some in another part of sheol are in torment, and they are waiting there for the resurrection. If Paul and all the saved go to be with the Lord at death and the Lord is in Heaven there is no such place as sheol or hades. If the dead all go to sheol and they are with the Lord, the Lord would be some place under the earth in sheol, not in Heaven, not setting on the right hand of God. GOING TO HEAVEN OR HELL AT DEATH MAKES ALL THE PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF THE DEAD BEING IN SHEOL OR HADES A LIE AND ALL THE PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD A LIE FOR THOSE IN HEAVEN COULD NOT BE DEAD; AND MAKES THE BIBLE SAY ONE THING IN ONE PLACE AND ANOTHER THING IN ANOTHER PLACE.
[5]. ANOTHER PASSAGE THAT W. E. VINE USED "THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT" to prove that the spirits of dead just men are alive in Heaven and have been made perfect. Hebrews 12:22-23 is a list of seven ways the New Covenant is now better than the Old Covenant. Paul said they HAD COME, not will come after death to the spirits of just men made perfect. This was then, while Paul and the others were alive, it was before death, before the Resurrection, before the Judgment, before anyone will be in Heaven, they had come "to the spirits of just men made perfect." We could not have come to the spirits of those made perfect in Heaven for they are not yet in Heaven. If it did refer to spirits in Heaven after the Resurrection, they would not have been "made perfect" when Paul was writing, which was before the Resurrection.
Seven ways the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant.
If the "spirits" of the just dead are now in Heaven, the just dead under both the Old and New Covenants would be in Heaven and would not prove the New Covenant to be better than the Old Covenant. It would be out of place in this list of ways the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. THOSE WHO BELIEVE ALL, THE SAVED AND THE LOST, HAVE SOULS THAT ARE NOW IMMORTAL BELIEVE THEY WERE JUST AS IMMORTAL UNDER THE LAW AS THEY ARE NOW, THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE A WAY THE NEW COVENANT IS BETTER THAN THE OLD.
When and how are the spirits of just man made perfect? "The spirits of just men made perfect" refers to men made perfect by having their sins washed away by the blood of Christ. We have had our sins washed away and have come to have fellowship with others who have been made perfect by having their sins washed away. Adam Clarke in his Commentary on Hebrews 12:23, "In several parts of this epistle teleiov, the just man, signifies one who has a full knowledge of the Christian system, who is justified and saved by Christ Jesus; and the teteleiwnemoi are the adult Christians, who are opposed to the nhpioi or babes in knowledge and grace...The spirits of the just men made perfect, or the righteous perfect, are the full grown Christians; those who are justified by the blood and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. Being come to such, implies that spiritual union which the disciples of Christ have with each other, and which they possess how far so ever separate; for they are all joined in one spirit, #Eph 2:18; they are in the unity of the spirit, #Eph 4:3, 4; and of one soul, #Ac 4:32. This is a unity which was never possessed even by the Jews themselves in their best state; it is peculiar to real Christianity: (See Heb 12:29)."
There is no way we could have come to the "spirits" of those in Heaven? If they were in Heaven, they would be beyond our reach unto we are in Heaven with them. We would not have come to them.
"And to the spirits of the righteous made perfect" [New Revised Standard Version]. If disembodied spirits were in Heaven and in any way had fellowship or communication with us it would prove Spiritualism, which is forbidden by God. Most all who uses this to prove the soul is now immortal do not believe we have any communication with the dead if they are in Heaven, Hell, the grave, or any other place, therefore, we have not come unto them.
WHEN THIS IS USED TO PROVE THE SPIRIT IS ALIVE AND THEREFORE, IMMORTAL AFTER DEATH FOR THE "SOUL" OF THOSE WHO ARE DEAD ARE NOW MADE PERFECT, IT MAKES THE JUDGMENT AND RESURRECTION BE 100% TOTALLY USELESS.
[6]. ANOTHER PASSAGE W. E. VINE USED, JAMES 2:26 See below [2] in PASSAGES IN WHICH "SPIRIT" [pneuma] IS USED BY MANY AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS "SOUL" [psukee].
Hamilton says spirit (pneuma) refers to God 288 times, to evil spirit 30 times, and 40 times pneuma refers to the human spirit (Truth Commentaries, 1 Peter, Page 370). W. E. Vine lists a number of ways pneuma refers to man, to "the human spirit," they must therefore be part of the 40 times. (f) The sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desire...(g) purpose aim...(i) character...(j) moral qualities and activities: bad... stupor... timidity... good... liberty... meekness... faith... quietness." W. E. Vine, Page 593. As these all refer to the human spirit, they must be a part of the 40 times, but not a one in his list refers to a part of a person that lives after the death of the person. Hamilton says on page 364 that the Soul may mean life, persons, the heart, the mind, or the spirit. From what both W. E. Vine and Hamilton say, some of the 40 times means the mind. etc. Therefore, the times pneuma can refer to an internal immortal part of a person would be less than 40 times. But, he did not say how many or list them, which is the very thing he needed to prove his point. Just saying that a part of less than 40 times means a person has an immortal spirit does not get the job done. How often, one, five or more? Where are they?
Does a person have an immortal soul or an immortal spirit that is not subject to death and that has eternal life without the resurrection? How many immortal parts does a person have? If two, a soul and a spirit, will both of the immortal parts of a person always exist as two independent and separate beings? If one, which is the immortal part of a person, the soul or the spirit? Vine says they are different, "Generally speaking the spirit is the higher, the soul the lower element" (Page 589), yet he says both are "the immaterial, invisible part of man" (page 588 and page 593).
Those who believe all mankind have an immortal inter part do not seem to know whether it is the "soul" or the "spirit" that is the "immaterial, invisible part of man" that will live without the earthly body. When preachers preach on the soul being immortal, they use passages that speak of the spirit but say nothing of the soul. THERE MAY BE MORE CONFUSION ON WHAT PART OF A PERSON SOME BELIEVE TO NOW BE IMMORTAL THAN ANY OTHER BIBLE TEACHING.
MANY USE SOUL AND SPIRIT INTERCHANGEABLY: For their belief, soul and spirit must be the same. If they were not, they would be forced to say one or the other is the immortal part of a person or that a person has two immortal beings in him or her. When I believed in Hell, I could not see there being a separate IMMORTAL SOUL and IMMORTAL SPIRIT. I used them interchangeably just as most do now without realizing it. When some read the SPIRIT GOES BACK TO GOD, in their mind they see the immortal SOUL GOING BACK TO GOD. Those who believe the SOUL will take up permanent residence in Heaven at death, and many who believe the SOUL is in Abraham's bosom and will not be in Heaven unto the judgment day both use Ecclesiastes 12:7 to prove the SPIRIT goes back to God in Heaven at death. How could the SPIRIT (the "immaterial, invisible part of man" that is immortal part of a person) return unto God at death if it goes to Abraham's bosom or to Hell? I have continually been told for years that lost souls go to Hell at the moment of death. Then how could the soul return to God if it goes to Hell and only the few souls that are saved go to Heaven at the moment of death? How can they not see that they are saying the soul goes to one place and at the same time they are saying the soul goes to another place? After Christ had been dead for three days and after His resurrection He said, "Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my father" [John 20:17]. Many say Christ went to an intermediate place where souls go before the resurrection but not to Heaven. If there were such an intermediate place, then the soul or the spirit does not return to God at death. One position is taken on one passage, and then the same persons shifts to another position on another passage and are continually shifting their position.
SOUL OR SPIRIT, WHICH ONE IS IMMORTAL? Any time 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, etc., comes up in a Bible class, the teacher has the same problem, the same confusion. What is the difference in soul and spirit? Which one is immortal? Many never seem to be quite sure which of the two, the soul or the spirit they believe to be immortal and not sure if they are the same or two entirely different parts of a person. They use passages, which have "spirit" in them to prove a person has an immortal soul, and passages, which have "soul" in them to prove a person has an immortal spirit. As long as anyone holds the view that a person is a two-part being with one part being the earthly body and one part is immortal, can there be an answer? If a person is a two-part being and not a three-part being, "soul" and "spirit" could only be the same thing; for if they were not, then a person would be a three-part being with two of the parts being immortal. Then which one is loss and which one will go to Heaven or Hell? The soul or the spirit? Body, soul-life, and spirit all are a person as he is now in the image of Adam. All three terms, body, soul, and spirit are used referring to a person at the same time. They are not three parts that can exist without each other. If they were, a person would have two separate immortal beings in Heaven simultaneously. They are not three separate beings with opposite natures, with two living within the other one.
Paul does not say may your soul be preserved blameless without your body or spirit. He puts the three together as being inseparable, the whole person, not three separate parts of a person.
Mark 12:30 "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your HEART, and with all your SOUL (psukee - life), and with all your MIND, and with all your STRENGTH."
Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart."
This passage shows that the soul and spirit are different things and can be divided, but there is nothing in it that says the soul, or the spirit is an immortal part of a person that will exist without the person.
Some believe the soul, and the spirit are different; but if a person has only one inter immortal being in him, which one is it? Soul (psukee) or spirit (pnuma)?
Unlike animals, God made man in His image with the potential of living forever. The spirit [life] of both man and animals returns to God, but one of the differences in persons and animals is that animals will not be raised from the dead. They are forever dead, just as a person would be if there was no resurrection. After death animals will never again have life just as the loss will never again have life after the second death. Death is death for both men and animals. Death is not death for animals and another kind of life for men; it is death for both. The second death will be death, not another kind of life that will go on forever.
THE PROBLEM FOR UNCONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY is which one is immortal? The soul or the spirit? Which one will be in Heaven or Hell? "May your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, [may the whole person, not just an invisible no substance part of a person] without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Blessed are the poor in spirit [pneuma]" [Matthew 5:3]. Poor in a no substance immortal spirit? Spirit and soul are not used interchangeably, and a passage that has one in it cannot be used to prove anything about the other one as many do today. BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT: The whole man of Genesis 2:7 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground [BODY], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [SPIRIT]; and man became a living soul [SOUL]." Body + the breath of life (spirit) = soul-a living being.
PASSAGES IN WHICH "SPIRIT" [pneuma] IS USED BY MANY AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS "SOUL" [psukee]. Not one time is any part of a person said to have an existence after death or to be able to function without the body.
[1]. THE SPIRITS IN PRISON 1 Peter 3:18-20. Most who uses this to prove the "spirit" is immortal believe the Protestant version that lost souls go to Hell at death; therefore, to them these disobedient spirits that were destroyed in the time of Noah for being disobedient were not destroyed but are now being tormented in Hell. If they were in Hell why did Christ go to these disobedient spirits? (1) For what purpose would Christ go into Hell and preach to only some that were there? To save them? Can those in Hell ever be saved? The very ones who believe there is a Hell and use this passage to prove the souls of the lost are alive in Hell before they are raised from the dead and before they are judged also says no that once a person is in Hell he or she can never get out. (2) What message would He take them that can never get out of Hell? The time when they could be saved was past therefore, the Gospel would do them no good. Would He go to raise a hope of release that could never be, or to taunt them? It would mean:
"Put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" [1 Peter 3:18]. Notice carefully what is said. This passage is used to prove there is an immoral spirit in all that can never die. If it were speaking of an immoral spirit, this immortal spirit was "made alive," therefore, it had to be dead. Made alive in the spirit AFTER He was put to death in the flesh. If "made alive in the spirit" was not His resurrection, then the very thing they are trying to prove is that the spirit cannot die, nevertheless, the spirit was dead and was "made alive." IF HE WERE ALIVE AND NEVER DEAD, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN "MADE ALIVE," BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN "KEPT ALIVE" OR "PRESERVED ALIVE" AND THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO RESURRECTION. Made alive: "Quickened by the spirit" King James Version. "Made alive by the spirit" New King James Version. Strong's word #2227 "made alive, give life, quicken."
If this preaching were by Christ in person, not by Christ through Noah, then the order was:
To fit with today's theology Peter's order must be changed to:
When was this preaching done? In the days of Noah, or in the three days Christ was in the grave? This is the whole question. Was it: [1] AFTER THEY WERE DEAD AND IN HELL WHEN THEY COULD NOT BE SAVED? Those who believe the soul of the lost goes to Hell at death do not believe any that are in Hell can be saved. According to their belief, all go to Heaven or Hell at death, therefore, if Christ went and preached to them in the three days He was in the grave, He would have had to preach to them either in Heaven or Hell. Why would He go to Hell and preach to those who could not be saved? Why do they use this verve? Is it not because they are desperate for any verse that will prove their immortal soul that they will give a few a second chance after death to be taken out of Hell if it would prove a part of a person is now immortal? [2] OR WAS IT WHEN THEY WERE ALIVE AND COULD BE BENEFITED BY THE PREACHING? Adam Clarke says He went and preached by Noah for one hundred and twenty years. The preaching was done in the days of Noah through Noah, a preacher of righteousness [2 Peter 2:5], not after the death of Christ. Noah warned them of the destruction to come if they did not repent. How were they in prison? "His servants you are whom you obey" [Romans 6:16]. "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage" [2 Peter 19]. "To open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the dungeon, and those who dwell in darkness from the prison" [Isaiah 42:7; also Isaiah 61:1; Psalm 142:7; Luke 4:18; John 8:34-45]. Those who obey Satan are in prison to him. Those who would not hear Christ preaching through Noah were in prison to Satan. "For we also once were...enslaved to various lusts and pleasures" [Titus 3:3]. "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage" [2 Peter 2:19].
[2]. "FOR THE BODY APART FROM THE SPIRIT IS DEAD" James 2:26. WHAT DOES THIS PASSAGE TEACH US ABOUT THE SPIRIT? Only that the body is dead without it. Nothing more. To teach anything more than this from this passage it must be read into it.
WHAT THIS PASSAGE DOES NOT SAY.
PASSAGES IN WHICH "SOUL" [psukee] IS USED AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS "SPIRIT" [pneuma].
[1]. LOSING LIFE [SOUL] or SAVING LIFE [SOUL] Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:37. Those who believe the soul to be immortal and cannot die also believe it is the soul that must be saved or lost. To them, to lose your soul means you will go to Hell; therefore, to "lose his SOUL [psukee] for my sake" means going to Hell for Christ. Their own definition of "lose his soul" is going to Hell. Do they think anyone will go to Hell for Christ's sake? If "psukee" means an immortal something in a person that will live forever in Heaven or Hell and they lose their SOUL [psukee] for Christ, going to Hell for Him would be just what this passage would say they would do.
BY TODAY'S THEOLOGY, DOES LOSING THE SOUL SAVE IT? Christ says, "For whosoever would save his PSUKEE [soul or life] shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his PSUKEE [soul - life] for my sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his PSUKEE [soul - life]? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his PSUKEE [soul-life]?" TO LOSE ONES LIFE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE IS TO LOSE IT BECAUSE OF BEING FAITHFUL TO CHRIST AND MANY DID IN THE FIRST CENTURY. They will find eternal life at the judgment. BUT, IF PSUKEE IS AN IMMORTAL SOUL, WILL SOME LOSE THEIR IMMORTAL SOUL BECAUSE THEY ARE FAITHFUL TO CHRIST? IN TODAY'S THEOLOGY, "SAVE THE SOUL" IS TO SAVE IT FROM HELL, AND "LOSE THE SOUL" IS TO LOSE IT IN HELL. WHEN THIS PASSAGE IS USED TO PROVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL "immaterial, invisible part of man" THAT WILL NEVER DIE, IT MAKES CHRIST SAY:
Those who say the soul is immortal, say we lose it when we sin, and save it when we obey Christ. If they were right, the only way we could lose our souls for Christ's sake would be for us to sin. According to them there is no other way to lose our "immortal soul"; then did Christ say we were to sin to save our soul? No, it is life some would lose BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT SIN AND ARE FAITHFUL TO CHRIST, not lose some immaterial, invisible immortal part of themselves BECAUSE THEY DO SIN AND ARE NOT FAITHFUL TO CHRIST. The promise that the PSUKEE [soul-life] will be saved when it is sacrificed for Christ makes no sense if the soul is some "immaterial, invisible" undying part of a person. How could we lose it for Christ's sake? "He that loves his PSUKEE [life] loses it; and he that hates his PSUKEE [life] in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" [John 12:25]. How do they think a person could lose the only part of his or her self that they say cannot die? When a person has sinned and "lost his soul," does that person have a living body with no soul in it? Christ was saying that gaining much would profit us nothing if we lose our life-our very existence. All who die without being in Christ have lost their psukee [life], they will not put on immortality at the resurrection; they will not have eternal life in Heaven. After the judgment and second death, they will have lost their very existence. "On what authority many have translated the word psukee in the twenty-fifth verse life, and in this verse (26) soul I know not; but I am certain it means life in both places." Adam Clarke.
Epaphroditus hazarded "his PSUKEE [life]" [Philippians 2:30]. Judas and Silas have "hazarded their PSUKEE [lives] for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" [Acts 15:26-27]. They could put their life in danger for the sake of Christ. Many put their life in danger and lost their life for preaching Christ, but how could they risk an immortal part of a person that cannot die, and no man can see it or kill it? Paul says, "But I hold not my PSUKEE [soul-life] of any account as dear unto myself" [Acts 20:24]. If this psukee is an inter being which has immortality from our birth, Paul must not have thought it not to be of any account, or not worth much. Just as have been said about other passages, today's theology that says psukee means an "immaterial, invisible part of man" makes these passages be nonsense.
[2]. "WHAT SHALL A MAN GIVE [not sell] IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS LIFE." "Soul" in King James Version, Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:37. This passage is used to show that a person has an undying soul that is of more value than the entire world, but many will sell their PSUKEE "SOUL" for very little. Does it teach this? The American Standard Version and most other translations, translates "PSUKEE" into "LIFE,'' not "SOUL" as the King James does. A man can give all he has to someone about to take his life to get that someone to let him live, but he could in no way give anything in exchange for an immortal inter part of himself which cannot die. THINK ABOUT THIS. HOW COULD ANYONE BUY OR SELL AN "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE" IMMORTAL PART OF ANOTHER PERSON WHICH HE CANNOT SEE AND IT CAN NEVER DIE? It would be impossible for anyone to give anything in exchange for it.
"Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?" WHEN "PSUKEE" IS MADE TO BE AN INTER IMMORTAL PART OF A PERSON THAT CANNOT DIE, THEN WOULD NOT GIVING SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR IT BE BUYING ONES WAY INTO HEAVEN? Frequently, in sermons and invitations, I have heard "what would a man give in exchange for his life" changed to "what would a man sell his immortal soul for." To give something in exchange for something is to buy it, not sell it. "Give" [pay, to give money or something] is changed to "sell" [to take money]. It is changed to say the opposite of what it does say to make it say what many want it to say. There is not one word in this verse about a person, or a part of a person being tormented forever. THIS PASSAGE IS ABOUT HOW A MAN WOULD PAY ALL HE HAS IN EXCHANGE FOR A FEW MORE YEARS OF LIFE, BUT WOULD "FORFEIT HIS LIFE" IN HEAVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PLEASURE OF SIN. The wages of sin is death [Romans 6:23]. Do not take the pleasures of sin for a few years in exchange for your life in Heaven as many do. When it is translated right, as in the American Standard Version and many others, not even the word "soul" as it is used in today's theology is not in this verse.
[3]. SOUL REQUIRED Luke 12:19-21. "And I will say to my LIFE [Greek psukee], LIFE [psukee], you have much goods lain up for many years: take your ease, eat, drink, be merry. But, God said unto him, You foolish one, this night is your LIFE [psukee] required of you; and the things which you have prepared, whose shall they be? So is he that lies up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." It is not eternal torment that will be required of them but life. The New International Version reads, "And I'll say to MYSELF [Greek psukee-life], 'YOU [Greek psukee-life] have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat drink and be merry' But, God said to him 'You fool! This very night your LIFE [Greek psukee] will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' This is how it will be with anyone whom stores up things for himself [puts the world ahead of God] but is not rich toward God." Those who believe souls are immortal use this to prove there will be life after death. They say this life must be from the time of death onward and never end, but it does not say either. There will be a resurrection and judgment of all, not just those in Christ. After the judgment, those who have laid up treasure for them self on earth, and are not rich toward God, their life will be required of them. CHRIST COULD NOT HAVE SAID ANY PLAINER THAT LIFE [not torment] WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THOSE NOT RICH TOWARD GOD. IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE IF THIS PSUKEE WERE AN UNDYING IMMORTAL SOUL. HOW COULD THE ONLY PART OF A PERSON THAT WILL LIVE FOREVER BE REQUIRED OF HIM?
"YOUR soul [life-psukee] required of YOU." Who is the "your" and "you"? They could not be the soul for then it would be saying the "soul" is required of the "soul." "Your" is the person whose life will be required. The Soul, as the word is used today, was never required of anyone. Psukee in the New Testament is never an undying "immaterial, invisible part of man." Life will be required of the sinner, not an undying soul.
[4]. God is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:5 See Gehenna in chapter four, second occasion.
[5]. Souls under the altar Revelation 6:9. See chapter eight, part three.
PASSAGES WHICH DO NOT HAVE "SPIRIT" OR "SOUL" IN THEM BUT ARE USED TO PROVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL SPIRIT /SOUL. All the passages used are said to "imply" that a person has an immortal soul/spirit but none state it. They base their doctrine on what they think is implied, not on what is said.
[1]. THE THIEF ON THE CROSS Luke 23:43.
DID THE THIEF KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE KINGDOM AND THAT CHRIST WAS TO BE RESURRECTED THAT AT THAT TIME NO OTHERS KNEW, NOT EVEN THE TWELVE? From Matthew one to Acts two it was believed that the Christ was to restore the kingdom to Israel and sit on the throne of David and be a king on this earth.
This thief would have had to know that Christ was going to be resurrected from the dead and then set up His kingdom when no one, not even the twelve know.
MOCKERY AT HIS TRIAL BEFORE PILATE "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium, and gathered unto him the whole band. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe, and they platted a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the robe, and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him" [Matthew 27:27-30]. "And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands" [John 19:2-3].
The scarlet robe, crown of thorns, a reed in His hand and kneeling down before Him was mockery.
"Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he said unto the Jews, Behold, your King! They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar" [John 18:14-15]. Jesus was the king the Jews were looking for but He said, "My kingdom is not of this world" and He did not restore the earthly kingdom to Israel as they thought their savior was going to do, they rejected Him and mocked Him.
MOCKERY BY PILATE WHEN CHRIST WAS ON THE CROSS "And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek. The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written" [John 19:19-22]. When Pilate put this on the cross of a man he did not think was a king or who would ever be a king, it was nothing but mockery by Pilate.
MOCKERY BY THOSE THAT PASSED BY, THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE ROBBERS
Matthew 27:39-48: "And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, You that destroyed the temple, and builds it in three days, save yourself: if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. He trusted on God; let him deliver him now, if he desires him: for he said, I am the Son of God. And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach. Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And some of them stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calls Elijah. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him."
Mark 15:29-32: "And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ha! You that destroys the temple, and builds it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests mocking him among themselves with the scribes said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him. And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah. And one ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down."
THIS MOCKERY WAS OVER CHRIST CLAIMING TO BE KING BY:
MOCKERY BY THE BOTH ROBBERS "And robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach" [Matthew 2744]. Matthew and Mark give details of the mockery by all but the robbers saying only that they "cast upon him the same reproach." Luke tells how they "cast upon him the same reproach." Just as Pilate did not believe Jesus, who had never been king over any nation and was about to be put to death, was "THE KING OF THE JEWS," this robber did not believe the person being put to death with him would ever be a king and come into His kingdom. "And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also scoffed at him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, offering him vinegar, and saying, If you are the King of the Jews, save thyself. And there was also a superscription over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. And one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him, saying, Are not you the Christ? Save yourself and us. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Do you not even fear God, seeing you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man has done nothing amiss. And he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And he said unto him, Truly I say unto you, to-day you shall be with me in Paradise" [Luke 23:33-38].
CHRIST DID NOT GO TO PARADISE THAT DAY. When will anyone go to paradise or Heaven? Not unto after the judgment. We must wait for the resurrection and judgment before we will go to heaven. Did Christ tell the theft that he would be in Heaven that day? Jesus did not go to paradise that day. He had said He would be in the heart of the earth [grave] for three days [Luke 12:40]. This was on Friday evening just before the beginning of the Sabbath day. On Sunday morning He said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father" [John 20:17]. Paul said Christ died, was buried, and was raised on the third day [1 Corinthians 15:3-4; see Matthew 12:40]. He was dead and in the grave unto the third day when the Father raised Him. IF CHRIST WERE ALIVE AND WENT TO HEAVEN THE DAY HE DIED, WHAT WAS HIS RESURRECTION ON THE THIRD DAY? IT WOULD BE NOTHING BUT MOCKERY TO SAY HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD WHEN HE WAS ALIVE IN HEAVEN. Christ said, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man" [John 3:13]. If Moses did not ascend into Heaven at his death and had not ascended at the time Christ spoke this how did the robber ascend to Heaven if Moses and David did not? In an attempt to make a passage say someone went to Heaven at death, has the thief been made to be better than Moses and David? WHERE WAS CHRIST FROM HIS DEATH TO HIS RESURRECTION? "He foreseeing this spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up" [Acts 2:31-32]. This is from Psalm 16:10, "Because you will not abandon me to the grave (sheol)" New International Version.
WHICH WAY DO THEY SEND CHRIST? The advocates of an immortal soul say Christ went both up and down at His death.
WHAT IS NOT SAID: Nothing is said about the robber believing after he had "reproached him." This is added by those who say they do not believe in adding to the word of God.
CHRIST WENT TO THE GRAVE THAT DAY, NOT HEAVEN. Both Christ and the robber were in hades - the grave - on "this day.
The Kings James Version makes Christ be asking the thief a question but ends the question with a period. As it is in the Kings James Version and with the Old English changed to today English."
The way it is worded makes Christ be asking the thief a question, "Shall you be with me in paradise?" Yet this passage is frequency used to prove Christ was telling the thief that they both would be together in Heaven that very day. Christ went to the gave that day. Where is Paradise? The only other uses of Paradise in the New Testament are: [1] Paul was "caught up into paradise," which he says is in "the third heaven" [2 Corinthians 12:2-4]. [2] "To him that overcomes, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God" [Revelation 2:7]. [3] The tree of life is in the New Jerusalem [See Revelation 21:1 to 22:5].
Many translations make Christ be telling the thief they both would be together in paradise (Heaven?) that day.
With the comma where it is in most translations, Christ answer to the mockery of the thief was that he would be with Him that day. That day Christ was in the grave, therefore, Christ told the thief that he would be in the grave that day. TELLING THE THIEF THAT HE WAS GOING TO DIE AND BE IN THE GRAVE THAT DAY DOSE NOT SOUND LIKE AN ANSWER THE THIEF WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IF HE HAD TRULY REPENTED AND WAS FORGIVEN.
IF CHRIST WERE TELLING THE THIEF THAT HE WOULD BE WITH HIM IN HEAVEN IT WAS NOT ON THAT DAY; the comma, which is not in the Greek must be moved for both Christ and the thief went to the grave that day, not to Heaven. "I say unto you to-day, you shall you be with me in paradise." This not would make the being in paradise be on that day, not on the day of their death. No one goes to Heaven at death before the resurrection and judgment. If the thief truly did repent and by "paradise" Christ was telling the thief that he would be in Heaven with Him, the comma must be put after "today" for Christ or the thief did not go to Heaven that day.
The Greek, in which the New Testament was written, did not have chapters or punctuation. Men have added the punctuation. The oldest manuscripts are all capitals, the words are not separated and there is no punctuation. Cardinal Huge de Sancta Caro divided it into chapters in A. D. 1250. It was divided into verses about 1550 A. D. by Robert Stevens. Manutius, a printer of Venice in A. D. 1490, invented the comma. It was put in the King James Version in A. D. 1611, BUT IT WAS NOT USED BY LUKE BEFORE IT WAS INVENTED, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO COMMA IN LUKE 23:43. There was not a comma in the whole New Testament. Men put all the punctuation marks in the Bible we use today, not God. The translators could sometimes make it say what was consistent with their beliefs by the way they used punctuation. Move the comma, which was not invented unto 1490 and was added by uninspired men in the King James Version by man in A. D. 1611, and it does not say when they would be in paradise.
The Companion Bible, Appendix 173: "The interpretation of this verse depends entirely on punctuation, which rests wholly on human authority, the Greek manuscripts having no punctuation of any kind till the ninth century, and then it is only a dot in the middle of the line separating each word." To put the comma where the King James Version put it makes Jesus a liar for He know He would not be in paradise that day. The King James translators, who believed all go immediately to Heaven or Hell at death, punctuated it to makes both Christ and the thief be in Heaven ON THAT VERY DAY. "This day" is a common expression in the Bible. See Genesis 31:18; Exodus 34:11; Deuteronomy 4:26; 4:40; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1; 8:11; 30:5.
H Leo Boles: "Evidently Jesus did not mean that this robber would go with him to heaven that day, as it seems clear from other statements that Jesus did not go to heaven that day. His day of ascension came about forty days after that time" A Commentary On The Gospel B Luke, Page 454, 1954, Gospel Advocate Company.
There is no grammatical justification for the placement of the comma before "today." Christ or the thief did not go to Heaven that day. By moving the comma that was added by uninspired men with a theological biases, the conflict with other passages is removed even if "in paradise" did mean "in Heaven."
[2]. TO DIE IS GAIN Philippians 1:21-23. When this passage is used to prove that a person takes up residence in their permanent abode in Heaven at death, it is taken out of context. Paul says, "So that my bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest; and that most of the brethren in the Lord, being confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear" [Philippians 1:13-14]. His imprisonment was not a personal gain, but because of it, the word of Christ was being preached, therefore, it was gain. In verse 18 it did not matter the motives, Christ was being preached and he rejoiced. Verse 20 "So now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life, or by death." If he lived, he would preach Christ. If he died, others would be made more bold and preach Christ because of his death. Verse 21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Death is an enemy [1 Corinthians 15:26]. It was not a personal gain for Paul. He knows he would not be in Heaven unto after the resurrection and judgment at the second coming of Christ. HE KNOWS HIS DEATH WOULD BE A GAIN FOR THE CAUSE OF CHRIST. Verse 22 "But if to live in the flesh, if this shall bring fruit from my work, then what I shall choose I know not" If he lived and preached Christ, or if his death would cause others to preach Christ, which one would bring the most fruit, he knew not. HE IS NOT SAYING HE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER LIVING IN THIS WORLD WAS BEST, OR LIVING IN HEAVEN WAS BEST; BUT THIS IS WHAT HE IS MADE TO SAY WHEN THIS PASSAGE IS USED TO PROVE AN IMMORTAL SOUL. If "To die is gain," means we go to Heaven when we die, why do we go to a doctor to get well and do all we can to keep from going to Heaven? Why do we pray for each other when one of us is sick? Are we not asking God not to take us to Heaven and are thankful if He does not? The reason we do not want to die is that death is not a gateway to Heaven, but death is an enemy. If death were a gateway to Heaven, we would be praying, "Lord, do not make us come live up there with You, let us live down here on earth where Satan can tempt us." We are repeatedly told we will be with the Lord at His coming [2 Thessalonians 2:1] when He shall appear [Colossians 3:4], yet "To die is gain" is used to set aside many plain and clear passages and make the entrance to Heaven be at death, not after the resurrection.
[3]. TO DEPART AND TO BE WITH THE LORD: Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8. BE WITH THE LORD AT THE JUDGMENT DAY, NOT AT DEATH: In the same letter Paul says, "If by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead" [Philippians 3:11]. He tells the Thessalonians that we will BE WITH THE LORD after the resurrection, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always BE WITH THE LORD" [1 Thessalonians 4:16-17].
"Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, SHALL GIVE TO ME AT THAT DAY; and not to me only, but also TO ALL THEM THAT HAVE LOVED HIS APPEARING" [2 Timothy 4:8]. Paul clearly says the time of his death has come, but he will not receive the crown of righteousness unto the appearing of Christ at the Judgment Day. He will be with the Lord at the same time all the saved will be, "AT THAT DAY" the Judgment Day, not at death. At "HIS APPEARING" See 2 Timothy 1:12; 1:18; 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Philippians 1:10; 1:6; 1 Corinthians 1:8; 5:6. When will Paul be given "the crown of righteousness?" When Christ comes, not at death. See 1 Peter 5:4. When will Paul and all the saved be with the Lord? At "His appearing," not at death. "To be with the Lord," says nothing about an "immaterial, invisible part of man" between death and the resurrection. "And so we shall we ever be with the Lord" [1 Thessalonians 4:17], is after the resurrection that we will be with the Lord, not at death. No one has ascended into Heaven but Christ; therefore, Paul has not ascended to Heaven and is not now in Heaven with the Lord [John 3:13]. PAUL DIED ABOUT TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, BUT HE, LIKE DAVID [Acts 2:29], IS NOT YET IN HEAVEN WITH THE LORD AND WILL NOT BE UNTO AFTER THE RESURRECTION; THEREFORE, THIS PASSAGE COULD NOT BE SAYING PAUL HAD AN IMMORTAL SOUL THAT WOULD GO TO HEAVEN AND BE WITH THE LORD AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.
To make "with the Lord" mean we go to Heaven with the Lord at death takes away any need for a resurrection and makes it useless and foolish. After some had been in Heaven with the Lord for centuries, why would He send them back to earth to raise them from the dead and take them back to Heaven when from the day of their death they had been very much alive in Heaven and were never dead? There are three major views on the condition of the dead.
Although it is used as undeniable proof or both 2 and 3 and to set aside the many passages on the resurrection, this passage is completely silent about where the dead are before the resurrection.
Those who believe the dead go to hades, some to be with the rich man in torment and some to be in "Abraham's bosom" also use "be with the Lord" when they are trying to prove men now have an immortal soul, but in doing so they do not seen to be able to see that they are making all go to Heaven or Hell at death and, therefore, they have made going to hades at death impossible. We could not be in "Abraham's bosom" and in Heaven with the Lord both at the same time. When they need to, they make hades be "the grave" for the body to be in; and when they need to, they make it be "Abraham's bosom" for the "soul" to live in. How do they know when it should be one, and when it should be the other? In trying to make Paul and Stephen be conscious after death, both are put in heaven at death before and without the Judgment Day, before and without the resurrection.
We need to be very careful not to make Paul say something he did not say [2 Peter 3:16]. "To be with the Lord," but where and when? Not in our permanent abode in Heaven at death, for we will not be there unto after the judgment. If we go to Heaven or Hell at death, this would mean that the final judgment takes place at death, for God would have to decide our destiny then; therefore, God would have made the final judgment before the Judgment Day, before the coming of Christ.
Jesus said, "AND IF I GO AND PREPARE A PLACE FOR YOU, I WILL COME AGAIN, AND RECEIVE YOU TO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YOU MAY BE ALSO" [John 14:3]. Many say, "Not so Lord, we will be with you in Heaven, Your second coming and the resurrection will not be needed for we will be alive with You in Heaven." But Paul says, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; WHO WILL TRANSFORM THE BODY OF OUR HUMBLE STATE INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE BODY OF HIS GLORY [Philippians 3:20-21]. It is us who will be transformed, not just a part of us that is now just as immortal as it will always be and will not need to be transformed, and this part of us will not wait for the Lord Jesus to come again, but go to Heaven to be with Him at death.
Living Christians need not sorrow as the rest who have no hope [1 Thessalonians 4:13]. There are four points in this passage.
Why did Paul say he had a desire to depart? He lived a life of suffering, toil, and trials [2 Corinthians 11:23-33] and like Job, he understood death would be a relief from pain; and he knew that from the standpoint of the person that departs it will be as if he or she is with the Lord the next moment for we will know nothing of the time between death and the resurrection. To us, it will be as if we are with the Lord in only a moment. For us, there is no life after death unto the resurrection and never would be life without it.
Analus is used in the New Testament only two times. Luke 12:36 "when he will RETURN [Greek-analus] from the wedding." Philippians 1:23 "having a desire to DEPART [Greek-analus], and to be with the Lord." "To depart" or "Will return," which one does analus mean? Maybe it is like aloha which means both hello and goodbye.
[4]. HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS: 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 is used to show the "house not made with hands" is the spirit and it will be conscious before the resurrection. This "longing to be clothed upon with our habitation that is from Heaven," is longing for our habitation at "the judgment seat" [5:10], not in this life, or not at our death. IF THIS "HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS" WERE AN IMMORTAL SOUL, AS THOSE WHO USE THIS PASSAGE TO TEACH WE NOW HAVE AN IMMORTAL SOUL SAYS IT IS; THEN WE WOULD NOW HAVE THIS IMMORTAL SOUL NOW LIVING IN US, THEN WHY WOULD WE BE "LONGING TO BE CLOTHED" WITH OUR "HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS" WHEN WE ARE NOW CLOTHED WITH IT AND ALL, EVEN THOSE NOT IN CHRIST HAVE BEEN CLOTHED WITH IT FROM THE DAY OF BIRTH? IF THIS WERE SPEAKING OF BEING IMMORTAL, IT COULD BE WE ARE LONGING TO HAVE THIS HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS, OR IT COULD BE THAT WE NOW HAVE IT, BUT IT COULD NOT BE BOTH LONGING FOR IT AND NOW HAVE IT. Which way do they want it to be?
If the "house not made with hands" were an immortal soul and the lost now have an immortal soul AS SOME TEACH THEY DO, then the lost would NOW have this "house not made with hands," the same immortal soul NOW while they are living and will ALWAYS have it in Hell. If the lost do not have eternal life, they would not know they were in Hell and could not feel any pain. Their teaching makes all now have this house, which they say is an "immaterial, invisible part of man," and no one, lost or saved, need to long for it for all now have this "immaterial, invisible part of man," and all will always have it, but in an attempt to prove a person now has an immortal soul they use "longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven" when they say that we are born with it?
According to the immortal soul teaching of today, what is mortal that is swallowed up of life? [2 Corinthians 5:4]
Summary: The teaching of some makes Paul be wrong when he said we are "longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven" for their teaching says we had it at birth and will always have it even if we go to "Hell."
[5] IN THE BODY OR OUT OF THE BODY 2 Corinthians 12:1-2 "But I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord" PAUL HAD NOT DIED, THEREFORE, THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES.
EITHER WAY: (1) This says nothing about an "immaterial invisible part of man" (2) or nothing about anything that will be after death either before or after the resurrection. Those who use this to prove a person has an immortal soul must say they know what Paul said he did not know. They must say only a part of Paul, his "soul" but not his body went to Heaven, and that this was not a vision. How could anyone know this when Paul did not? According to the common view, when the soul leaves the body, the body is dead, and death is the separation of body and soul. Therefore, if a part of Paul called "soul" separated from the body and went to the third Heaven, his body was on the earth separated from this soul, therefore, dead. According to what some say death is, Paul was dead and his return to earth would have to be a resurrection from the dead. According to this teaching, his dead body was on earth and his soul was in Heaven separated from his body, he died and was raised from the dead and did not know it. We are told that "out of the body" means Paul's soul went to paradise and left his corpse on the earth, therefore, Paul was dead according to their own definition of death. Who can believe Paul was dead and resurrected and did not know it?
Summary: First ADDED, then CHANGED. First "psukee [life, soul, living being]" must be ADDED into this passage when it is not in it, then the ADDED psukee must be CHANGED into an immortal being, a part of a person was immortal from the day of birth. Theology had to go on a long trip to put what they wanted into this. There is nothing in this passage about the intermediate time from death unto the resurrection; but that a part of a person called "soul" is alive in the intermediate time from death to the resurrection is what they are trying to prove with it. PAUL WAS SPEAKING ABOUT A VISION THAT HAD HAPPENED FOURTEEN YEARS BEFORE [2 Corinthians 12:1], NOT A DEATH, AND NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT A SOUL OR ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WILL BE AFTER DEATH. How could this possibly be used to prove Paul or anyone has a soul that is immortal?
[6]. THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB [Luke 20:27-38]. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. "On that day there came to him Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection" [Matthew 22:23]. To prove there was no resurrection they tried to trick Jesus with a question that would prove there was not. The point of His answer was to prove there will be a resurrection, not to prove anything about the state of the dead before the resurrection. Christ was asked, "The woman also died...in the resurrection; therefore, whose wife..." [Luke 20:33]. They did not ask whose wife she would be at death but in the resurrection. Their question was not who now has her disembodied spirit in the intermediate state. There is nothing said about an intermediate state or about immortal souls or immortal spirits that are alive before the resurrection. Christ said to them, "but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world (aion-age), and the resurrection from the dead...but that THE DEAD ARE RAISED" [Luke 20:35-37], "But as touching the resurrection of the dead" [Matthew 22:31]. "For when they shall rise from the dead...But as touching the dead, that they are raised" [Mark 12:25-26]. IF THE DEAD ARE LIVING IN A DISEMBODIED STATE, FOR GOD TO SAY HE WAS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM WOULD NOT PROVE THERE WILL BE A RESURRECTION, BUT WOULD PROVE ONE WAS NOT NEEDED. IF ABRAHAM WERE NOT DEAD, CHRIST COULD NOT HAVE USED ABRAHAM TO PROVE THE DEAD ARE RAISED. The dead must be dead to be raised; the living would not need to be raised. The whole point Christ was making is that there will be a resurrection, not that none are dead to be resurrected. Not that a disembodied spirit is the only part of a person that will be in Heaven or Hell and it is now alive in Heaven or Hell. If it were alive anywhere, it would make the resurrection impossible. A resurrection of those who are living would be an empty show, a fraud, not a resurrection. The belief of many says, "Not so Christ, I was born immortal and cannot die, therefore, I cannot be dead or raised from the dead"? This theology destroys the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection.
If Abraham were alive, as many teach he was, then he was never asleep. Do they believe the part of us that they think can never be dead [our soul] is going be resurrected from the dead to be in Heaven, although it can never be dead? Paul said of Able, "He being dead" [Hebrews 11:4]. If language has any meaning, Abel was dead, not alive, at the time Paul said this. "For David...fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption" [Acts 13:36]. If David were living (awake) at this time, if only his body was in the tomb, Peter had no point or argument. What he said had no meaning. "From the day that the fathers fell asleep" [2 Peter 3:4]. This shows that Abraham and David are still asleep, along with all other's that "are fallen asleep" [1 Corinthians 15:6].
To say that Abraham has been raised is to say the resurrection is past, and Christ was not the "first fruits" [2 Corinthians 15:20], or the "first born" [Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5]. To say that Abraham was never dead is to make a resurrection impossible. The resurrection at the coming of Christ is the subject, and nothing is said about what will be between death and the resurrection. Abraham "believed, even God, who gives life to the dead, and calls the things that are not, as though they were" [Romans 4:18]. "For none of us live to himself, and none die to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of BOTH THE DEAD AND THE LIVING" [Romans 14:7-9]. How could Christ be LORD OF THE DEAD if no one is dead?
Summary: If the dead are more alive than when they were living, it both takes away the need for a resurrection and made it impossible. CHRIST'S ARGUMENT THAT THERE WILL BE A RESURRECTION IS TOTALLY DESTROYED. When this passage is used to prove the dead are not dead but are conscious, then it proves that there is no resurrection. If the dead are alive, then how would His answer prove there would be a resurrection, and what would be the need of one? This is a serious problem for those who teach unconditionally immortality. THEY CANNOT TEACH THAT THE DEAD ARE MORE ALIVE THAN THE LIVING WITHOUT DESTROYING THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. If Abraham, David, Job, and other saints are alive in Heaven, death has already been destroyed. Death would have been destroyed for all at death, not at Christ's second coming; and even those in the Old Testament would have had life, eternal life, without the death of Christ and without the resurrection and judgment. Nothing is said about an "immaterial, invisible part of man" and nothing is said about immortality in this passage. If it did prove a person has an immortal "immaterial, invisible part of man" that is now alive, then it would prove that there will be no resurrection. Take away the fact that Abraham was dead, which is the very thing that those who say a person is born immortal and can never die are trying to do; and you take away the point of Christ's argument; and make Him be saying just so many words that say nothing. Christ's argument, that there will be a resurrection, requires that Abraham is dead at the time Christ made the argument. Abraham being alive now requires that he never died or that his resurrection is past. When did it happen? The resurrection of Christ, Abraham, or anyone requires that they are dead at the time of the resurrection, for they could not be resurrected if they were alive. How could anyone think that a coming back of the living from Heaven is a resurrection of the dead? If David were not still in the tomb, then he had been raised the same as Christ; but raised before Christ, therefore, Christ was not the first fruit. Today's theology has changed this to read, "but that the dead are not dead to be raised," or "but that the separated are not dead to be raised." If He were saying Abraham is alive now, He would be denying the point He was making, that there will be a resurrection, for Abraham could not be raised if he were alive. If Abraham were alive at that time then Luke 20:27-38 proves that there will not and cannot be a resurrection. This passage teaches a "resurrection of the dead," not "no one is dead to be resurrected from the dead."
[7]. THE TRANSFIGURATION: A RESURRECTION or A VISION? Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-9.
A VISION: Christ said it was a vision. "Tell the VISION to no man" [Matthew 17:9]. Moses and Elijah ("Elias" in the King James Version) were seen with Christ and then were gone, leaving only Christ. Vision [Greek-horama] is used in the New Testament twelve times, and in the King James Version it is always translated "vision" except in Acts 7:31 where it is translated "the sight." This is not the Greek word "optasia" that is translated "vision" in 2 Corinthians 12:1.
If this were a vision, no argument can be taken from it for the existence of disembodied souls for Moses and Elijah were only seen in a vision. Those who believe in unconditional immortality MUST reinterpret this into bringing a soul that was alive in Heaven and came back from Heaven to earth, and that Moses had ascended to Heaven despite the fact that Christ said no man had. They must say to Christ, "No it is not a vision of Moses, but the real Moses back from Heaven where he has been with You alive from his death." It is not said or implied that Moses was in Heaven and came back to earth, or that he was alive. WE ARE TOLD THAT THIS WAS A VISION. "Tell the VISION to no man" [Matthew 17:9]. THIS BEING A VISION PROVES THEY WERE NOT CALLED BACK FROM HEAVEN. IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THERE WAS AN IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF THEM THAT WAS ALIVE ANYWHERE.
A RESURRECTION: Moses and Elijah were really there, and Matthew was wrong when he called it a vision. If it were a resurrection, it was a resurrection like Lazarus and other resurrections in the Bible and proved Moses was dead, not alive and had to be resurrected to be there. If Moses were alive and immortal, he would have been brought back from Heaven and would not have needed to be raised from the dead. FOR THIS PASSAGE TO TEACH A PERSON HAS AN "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN." IT MUST BE PROVED THAT THIS WAS NOT A VISION OR A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, BUT A BRINGING BACK OF THE LIVING MOSES FROM HEAVEN. Would the apostles be able to see "immaterial, invisible" disembodied spirits that had no human body? It had to be a vision or a resurrection for the apostles to be able to see them. If they were alive in the flesh, they had to be brought back from the dead just as Lazarus and others were. All resurrections in the Bible, other than of Christ, were only temporary, and those who were raised from the dead did not put on immortality as those in Christ will at the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:50-54]. Just as Lazarus was brought back in his earthly body to a mortal life, they were resurrected back to a mortal life and still in a mortal body and were not like the resurrection of Christ, or like the resurrection of the saved at the coming of Christ. THEY WERE ALL RAISED MORTALS SUBJECT TO DEATH AND ALL DIED AGAIN. NOT ONE OF THEM IS STILL ALIVE TODAY. NOT ONE OF THEM WAS RAISED IMMORTAL. Do they think God could not raise anyone from the dead if they were asleep, if they were not living in Heaven or Abraham's bosom? THEIR ARGUMENT IMPLIES THAT HE COULD NOT IF THOSE RAISED DID NOT HAVE AN IMMORTAL SOUL THAT WAS NOT ALIVE SOMEWHERE AND THAT GOD COULD NOT RAISE THEM FROM THE DEAD IF THEY WERE REALLY DEAD. If God wanted to, He could bring all back to life in the earthly body, and a few He did; [See Matthew 27:52-53] but the resurrection at the coming of Christ will not be a resurrection of this earthly body [1 Corinthians 15]. In any of these temporary resurrections, not one thing is said about what will be after our death or after the resurrection. If God raised one or ten thousand back to an earthly body, it does not effect the resurrection of all at the coming of Christ and would not in any way prove a person is now mortal or immortal. These earthly resurrections of mortal bodies say nothing about the resurrection at the coming of Christ when the saved will put on immortality. From the resurrections of Lazarus and others back to the mortal earthly body we would not know anything about those in Christ that are going to be raised immortal on the Resurrection Day if there were no other revelation about it.
Summary: EITHER WAY, if the transfiguration were a resurrection or a vision, it does not prove that a person is now mortal or immortal. The reason for this vision or resurrection was to show that we are not to hear the law and the prophets, but to "hear you him." Christ is now the one who has "All authority" [Matthew 28:18]. If any of the resurrections in the Old or New Testament were a resurrection to immortality, Christ could not have been "the first-fruits of them that are asleep" [1 Corinthians 15:20-23]. How can death be changed to life in Heaven without a resurrection?
[8]. GOD WILL BRING WITH CHRIST 1 Thessalonians 4:14. This is often used to prove those who have died are now in Heaven, and Christ will bring them back when He comes for the judgment. This passage is about the resurrection at the coming of Christ, and Paul says nothing about an "immaterial, invisible part of man" that is now alive before the resurrection. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that fallen asleep [are dead] in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede [go before] them that are fallen asleep."
"The dead in Christ shall rise first." Those who are asleep will wake up first. HOW COULD THEY WAKE UP IF THEY ARE NOT ASLEEP? HOW COULD THEY RISE FROM THE DEAD IF THEY ARE NOT DEAD AND HOW COULD THEY MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR IF THEY ARE COMING WITH HIM FROM HEAVEN? Paul says nothing about an immortal soul, but
Those who believe we have an "immaterial, invisible part of man" that is now immortal take the resurrection out of this passage and makes it be about
Those who believe the dead are now alive in Abraham's bosom make the Resurrection just as impossible as those who believe the dead are now alive in Heaven. Both believe that no one is dead to be raised from the dead, but they make the second coming be Christ coming from Heaven, going by way of Abraham's bosom to pickup those that are living in it (not raise them from the dead) and bring them that have never been dead but are now alive in Abraham's bosom back to earth.
"In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I COME AGAIN, AND WILL RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YOU MAY BE ALSO" [John 14:2-3]. Those who teach we have a soul that goes to Heaven at death now have that soul in the place where Christ has gone to prepare before He comes to receive them. Have they not made the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment useless? Those who preach at funerals often say our loved ones are now "with the Lord" in Heaven. This is a contradiction of Paul's detailed account of what will happen at the resurrection.
Two views:
The first view makes many problems.
The second view solves these problems.
CHRIST WILL BE COMING FROM HEAVEN WITH HIS "HOLY ONES," THE ANGELS, NOT DEAD SAINTS THAT ARE NOT DEAD. "Behold, the Lord comes with many thousands of His holy [hagios] ones" [Jude 14 New American Standard Version]. "Saints" in the King James Version is from "hagios," which is the same word that is translated "holy" 93 times in the "Holy [hagios] Spirit." It will be the angels that come from Heaven with Christ, not those who are "asleep in Christ." "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy [hagios] angels with Him" [Matthew 25:31, King James Version]. "When he comes in the glory of his father with the holy [hagios] angels" [Mark 8:38]. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel" [1 Thessalonians 4:16]. "The Son of man shall send forth his angels" [Matthew 13:41]. "At the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints [hagios-holy]" [1 Thessalonians 3:13]. "Holy ones" New International Version. Both Jude 14 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13 use "hagios." Strong's word number 40 "Sacred...blameless or religious (most) holy (one, thing), saint." THOSE WHO COME WITH CHRIST FROM HEAVEN ARE THE HOLY ANGELS, NOT THOSE WHO ARE ASLEEP IN CHRIST.
[9]. "EVERYONE WHO LIVES AND BELIEVES IN ME SHALL NEVER DIE" John 11:26. This passage is used to prove that all men now have an immortal "immaterial, invisible part of man" that can never die, but when it is so used, it makes a problem for them. If the words of Christ have any meaning, ONLY those that believe on Him "shall never die" and those that do not believe on Him SHALL DIE. If all have immortality from birth and can never die, what was He saying? This passage makes "never die" be conditional on believing on Christ, not on a never dying "immaterial, invisible part of man" that is read into it. It is used to prove all unconditionally have an immortal soul and can never die, even those who do not believe on Him. Those who believe on Him die a physical death, just as those who do not believe on Him. In what way do they never die? Their name is in the book of life and there will be a resurrection when they will "put on immortality" [1 Corinthians 15:54]. The resurrection and their eternal life are so sure that it is counted as if they now have it. They will not die the second death which all that do not believe will die.
Summary: According to today's theology, when this is read, as many read it, "He that has the Son has an immortal soul that shall never die," then it must also be read," He that has not the Son has not an immortal soul that shall never die" for today's theology says all now have an immortal soul that shall never die if they believe or if they do not believe.
[10] MATTHEW 25:46 WHAT IS ETERNAL? THE PUNISHMENT OR THE PUNISHING? Many say the PUNISHMENT must last as long as the LIFE, but this does not say what the punishment is. It is not a question of whether the punishment is eternal but whether it is an eternal LIFE with torment, or eternal DEATH. It is SUPPOSED by many that the word punishment can only be conscious suffering and their conditioning makes them read an eternal life of torment into it although we are told repeatedly that punishment will be death, destruction, perish, die, lost, etc.; but never that the punishment will be to be tormented by God forever. Nothing could be a more eternal punishment than a death from which there will never be a resurrection. There are many kinds of punishment, but from Matthew 25 all we can say is that there will be punishment, but nothing more or less than punishment. To say Matthew 25 says where or what the punishment will be is to say more than it says and, therefore, is adding to what God said. To know what the punishment will be we must go to other passages. God's word must say what it is, and it nowhere says God will be tormenting people forever. His word says the wages of sin is death, not eternal life with torment. If a person were put to death for a crime but could be restored to life after one year, his punishment would end after one year. If he were never restored to life, his punishment would never end. It would be eternal punishment but not eternal torment. The Scripture clearly says that the punishment is death, the wages of sin [Romans 6:23]. Paul clearly says what the everlasting punishment is, "even eternal destruction" [2 Thessalonians 1:9]. Christ contrasts "eternal life" for the saved with "eternal punishment" for the lost. "Life" or "eternal life" is promised to the saved repeatedly [See chapter two: LIFE and DEATH], but life is never promised to the lost. It will be "death" for them [Romans 6:23; James 1:15]. "They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" John 5:29. Christ says, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burnt." John 15:6. THE PUNISHMENT IS NOT TO BE FOREVER DYING, OR IS NOT FOREVER LIVING SEPARATED FROM GOD; BUT IT IS FOREVER BEING DEAD. THE PUNISHMENT FOR SIN IS DEATH [Roman 6:23; James 1:15]. THE PUNISHMENT [DEATH] IS JUST AS ETERNAL AS THE LIFE. Punishment can have many forms, but because of the conditioning of some [through their red glasses], they can see only fire and torment in Hell. We do not torment our children when we punish them do we? The concept of Hell is not from the Bible. The name or the place is not in it, and unto it is clearly shown that there shall be such a place, it cannot be said that this punishment is going to be eternal life in "Hell." After the judgment there is much said about the saved. They will be in the image of Christ; they will be immortal and have incorruption. But, there is nothing said about the lost, not what image they will have, not where they will be, or anything at all except that they will be dead [the second death]. Those who read the Bible with their Hell fire and damnation glasses on see Hell in Matthew 25:46, and on every page of the Bible.
Matthew 25:46 may be the #1 proof text for Hell. The name Hell is not in it. Today's concept of Hell, a place after the judgment where God will cruelly torment forever, is not in it. All that is in it is that the lost will have a punishment that will be forever. BEFORE ANYONE COULD POSSIBLY SEE "HELL" IN THIS PASSAGE A PLACE CALLED "HELL" MUST BE ASSUMED, AND THEN ACCEPTED AS A FACT, THEN GOD MUST BE MADE INTO THE MOST CRUEL, SADISTIC, AND FIENDISH BEING THERE IS, FAR SURPASSING EVEN SATAN IN CRUELTY. There is not one word in Matthew 25:46 about where, or what the punishment will be. Other texts say it is death, perish, destroyed, lost, and end. It does not say the punishment is eternal torment after the Judgment Day is over. To teach that Matthew 25:46 says the punishment is an eternal life of torment in Hell, as many do, is adding to it.
Some traditionalists say annihilation [death] is not punishment. They believe that "by no stretch of the imagination can the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 be defined as an extinction of consciousness, for if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment." Where does Matthew 25:46 say anything about suffering? Punishment must be CHANGED to eternal suffering and a place ADDED to have anyone suffering in Hell. If death row is not punishment, then why is the death sentence the worse punishment a person can get, for worse than life in prison? And to be on death row is to be in the worst part of a prison. WHAT WOULD THOSE ON DEATH ROW SAY IF SOMEONE TOLD THEM DEATH IS NOT A PUNISHMENT? Throughout all of history, death has been thought of as being the worst punishment there is. Why would most on death row love to get off it and have the punishment of life in prison instead of death? They are told they are not fit to live, and their punishment is to be death. For the sinner to stand before God on the judgment day and be told he is not fit to live and will be punished with the second death is the worst kind of punishment. Most fear death more than pain and will do all they can to live a little longer even if it is in pain. Death is worse because it takes everything from them and deprives of all the life and joy a person would have had, and the second death will deprive of eternal life in Heaven, of an eternity of ceaseless years of joy beyond any joy we can now even dream of, it is an infinite punishment in that it takes an infinite amount of life and joy from a person. We cannot vision all the joy that will be in Heaven for all eternity; therefore, we cannot know how much death will take from them. It is much more than we can know before the judgment. Death is a much greater punishment than any person can now imagine, and the second death will be an eternal punishment. THOSE WHO TEACH HELL MUST MAKE THEMSELVES, AND ALL OTHERS BELIEVE DEATH IS NOT A PUNISHMENT, THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE TORMENT IN HELL. When a lost person comes to the judgment, he may see that the saved will have an eternal life of joy and bliss in a place of indescribable glory and to know that all this could have been his, but for him there will be only the blackness and darkness of nothing. And some say this is not punishment!
Summary: WHATEVER THE PUNISHMENT IS IN MATTHEW 25:46, IT IS THE SAME PUNISHMENT AS Romans 6:16; 6:23; 8:6; Revelation 21:8; James 5:22; 2 Peter 2:1; 2:6; 3:7; Philippians 1:28; 3:19; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Matthew 3:12; 13:40; John 3:16, etc. The Bible does not teach one kind of punishment in one verse and another in another verse. It does not teach the punishment is everlasting life with torment in one verse and death in another verse. It comes down to the question of,
A PASSAGE, WHICH DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE PUNISHMENT IS, CANNOT OVERRIDE THE MANY PASSAGES, WHICH DO SAY WHAT IT IS. FROM MATTHEW 25:46 ALONE, NO ONE CAN SAY WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE. JUST THAT IT WILL BE AFTER THE JUDGMENT AND WILL BE FOREVER. The only way to know what is the punishment of Matthew 25:46 is to go to other passages that do say how God is going to punish the lost. THAT A PASSAGE WHICH DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE IS THE #1 PROOF TEXT FOR HELL SHOWS THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROOF. Can they deny that they are going beyond what the Bible says when they say what the punishment of Matthew 25:56 will be, and that they are adding eternal life in Hell when it is not there?
IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE? Robert A. Peterson, a strong believer in Hell, says, the Old Testament judgments, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, and the captivities of Israel, the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was the loss of human life. Page 23-24. Then on page 26, he says the punishments described in them are consistently earthly and temporal, resulting in physical death. None of these passages speak of life after death or eternal destinies, but Annihilationist err, for their belief would entail cessation of existence at death, not the resurrection and punishment of the wicked. "Hell On Trial" P & R Publishing. The New Testament used them as a type of God's judgment after the resurrection. He says they resulted in physical death. Peterson, Page 26. The New Testament used them as a type of God's judgment after the resurrection. He says they resulted in physical death. Peterson, Page 26. If the result of the judgment is not DEATH, but an everlasting LIFE of torment, then the types are not true for they do not show ETERNAL LIFE with punishment; but they would be true if DEATH is the end. The New Testament writers used the Old Testament types to show the destruction of [Death], not the torment of the lost. He errs in that he does not give God the power to raise the dead for judgment and punishment if the punishment is to be death. God will raise and judge them and just as His judgments in the Old Testament resulted "in death," so will His judgment at the resurrection be a second death. His statement that Annihilationist err because they believe the first death to be the end of those not in Christ and the lost will not be raised for judgment may possibly be true of some Annihilationist (none that I know of), but it is not true of most. MOST believe the Bible teaching that all the dead will be raised for the judgment, then for those not in Christ there will be the second death from which there will never be a resurrection. Did Robert A. Peterson just make a make believe man of hay or stubble so that he could pull down his stubble Annihilationist? THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE AFTER THE JUDGMENT. Annihilationist believes "the wages of sin is death" [Romans 6:23]. Believers in Hell believe the punishment, the wages of sin will be "everlasting life with torment." Those who believe in Hell often argue as if they think that those who oppose Hell do not believe in the resurrection, the judgment, or punishment. They know that if Annihilationist do believe in the resurrection, judgment and punishment they have loss much of their argument, FOR THEN THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHAT WILL THE PUNISHMENT BE AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS DEATH. In much of his book, he does as many, he assumes that those who do not believe in "Hell" do not believe the lost will be raised for judgment, and he assumes that there is a Hell and that Hell is its name; then he unjustly puts this name into the mouth of Christ.
A MORE BASIC QUESTION THAN WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE AFTER THE RESURRECTION IS "WHAT IS THE RESURRECTION?" If he is right, that there is no death, there will be no resurrection, and he is the one that does not believe in the resurrection that Annihilationist do believe in. Will what he falsely calls the resurrection be only a bringing of those who are alive in Heaven and Hell back to earth for judgment, or will the resurrection be raising the dead, bringing them back to life? On page 68 Peterson says God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the lost, but to rescue them from hell. This is a typical example of the way Hell is added to the Bible. The Bible is changed to read the way they want it to read and Hell is added where it is not. How could he know the lost shall be rescued from hell? Does he have a revelation that is not in the Bible? There is no revelation in the Bible that says the lost are rescued from hell, but there is much revelation that says the lost are saved from death. "Let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death" [James 5:20]. Salvation is from death, the wages of sin [Romans 6:23] not from an everlasting life of torment. "God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in him Son. He that has the Son has the life; he that has not the Son of God has not the life." [1 John 5:11-12].
Summary: THERE IS NO WAY THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE ALL ARE BORN IMMORTAL COULD REALLY BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OR IN THE NEED FOR IT. BY TEACHING THAT ALL ARE BORN WITH AN IMMORTAL PART THAT CAN NEVER DIE, THE RESURRECTION IS DENIED AND MADE NOT POSSIBLE. THE TWO ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, AND BOTH CANNOT BE TRUE. SATAN HAS DONE HIS WORK WELL.
ETERNAL JUDGMENT Hebrews 6:2. The judgment will be in one "day" at the second coming of Christ and is not being judged forever without end; but a judgment in which the results will last for eternity. "Eternal" is not describing a judging that has no end. Eternal has reference to the result of the judgment, not to the act of judging. The judging will end, but its result will never end. The punishment is after the judging. Will it take God all eternity to do the judging? If so, He will never get to the punishment. Whether the punishment is, Hell or death will not matter if God never gets past the judging. IT IS THE RESULTS OF THE JUDGMENT, AN ENDLESSLY BINDING VERDICT THAT WILL NEVER BE CHANGED THAT IS ETERNAL, NOT THE JUDGING.
ETERNAL REDEMPTION Hebrews 9:12, and ETERNAL SALVATION Hebrews 5:9. Not redemption or a saving that goes on without end, but saving once that will be for eternity. The time of salvation ends. God will not be savings those in Heaven for eternity. THE REDEMPTION WILL NOT BE GOING ON FOREVER, BUT THE RESULTS ARE ETERNAL. Those that are saved are forever saved, forever redeemed, not forever being redeemed. Their salvation is eternal. Even those who believe in Hell believe those in Heaven are redeemed, not being eternally redeemed; and those they believe to be in Hell can never be redeemed.
ETERNAL SIN Mark 3:29. This is a sin, which will be committed in this lifetime, and not a sin that will be being committed without end in Hell after the judgment. IT IS A SIN THAT THE RESULTS [DEATH: THE WAGES OF SIN] WILL LAST FOR ETERNITY.
ETERNAL FIRE Jude 7. Not a fire that is still burning Sodom and Gomorrah and will be burning these cities from now on, but the results [the total destruction of them] will last for eternity. These cities are not still burning, but the results of the fire were their eternal destruction. THE FACT THAT SODOM AND GOMORRAH SUFFERED THE VENGEANCE OF "ETERNAL FIRE" SHOWS THAT THE RESULTS ARE ETERNAL, NOT THE FIRE WAS ETERNAL AND THAT IT IS STILL BURNING TODAY AND WILL BURNING THESE CITIES FOR ETERNITY. The fire that destroyed Sodom is set forth as an example of "eternal fire" that will eternally destroy the wicked just as it eternally completely destroyed these cities.
ETERNAL DESTRUCTION 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and ETERNAL PUNISHMENT Matthew 25:46. Is this a destruction that will be bit by bit, but will take forever? No. It is destruction that the results will be final and eternal. Death, the wages of sin, is eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing; the death will be a permanent death, not forever dying but never dead. Eternal destruction and eternal punishment are speaking of the permanentness of both, a destruction and a punishment that will last forever, and is not describing the duration of the destruction, that it will take forever; not describing a destruction that the destroying will go on forever but never be destroyed. THERE WILL NEVER BE A RESURRECTION FROM THE SECOND DEATH, IT IS ETERNAL. Those who teach that a person has a soul that can never be destroyed make God be forever destroying but never able to completely destroy the lost. Unconditional immoralists believe God made them destruction proof, and even He cannot destroy them, but nevertheless He will be trying to destroy them by burning them for all eternity. IT IS THE DESTRUCTION THAT IS ETERNAL, NOT ETERNALLY DESTROYING.
[10]. 1 Peter 4:5 "Ready to judge the living and the dead." Christ will be ready to judge those who are living at the time of His coming, and those who have died before He comes. Nothing is said about a spirit or soul in this verse. Nothing is said about anyone having immortality before the resurrection.
OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES THAT ARE USED TO PROVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL and/or SPIRIT AT BIRTH.
This doctrine, "That man cannot die," made it necessity for evil people to have an endless existence, and this existence has been made into endless torment in a place that has been given the name Hell; but where did this doctrine or this name came from? The Bible says, "This mortal must put on immortality" 1 Corinthians 15:53. How can we put on that which we now have on? Can a person be both mortal and immortal at the same time?
[1]. MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE Genesis 1:27. Most probably the #1 proof text for immortality at birth. The argument is that God is immortal. A man is in God's image. Therefore, a man must also be immortal. This argument would make:
When God made a man, He did not give him all His characteristics. God is omnipotent [almighty] and omniscient [all knowing]. A man is not omnipotent or omniscient although he is in God's image, but God is both. Therefore, it does not prove that a person is immortal anymore than it proves a person is almighty. Animals are "living souls" [Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30, 2:19] just as mankind are "living souls," but animals were not created in the image of God. Therefore, it is not the "living soul" that makes a person be in the image of God. It is obvious that immortality, not subject to death, is not the way man is in "image of God," and it is only assumed to be even when the Bible specifically says otherwise. We now seek immortality [Romans 2:7] and will put on immortality at the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:53-54], but we are not now immortal; nor do we now have an immaterial invisible part of us that has no substance which is now as immortal as it will ever be. This argument gives the impression that the person making it thinks God has only one attribute, therefore, if a person is in the image of God, that person must also be just as immortal as God is.
A man is to rule (have authority) over all that God has put under him just as God rules over all. It maybe that man's authority over all the earth, which none of the other created being of the earth have, is the way man is in the image of God. The two are without any doubt spoken of in the same context. Mankind rules over all created beings on earth in a finite way as God does in an infinite way. Christians "have put on the new man that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" [Colossians 3:10, See Romans 3:29; 1 Corinthians 15:49; Ephesians 4:24].
[2]. THE BREATH OF LIFE: Genesis 2:7 Is used to prove God breathed into a person an immortal soul, which He did not give to lower animals. They overlook the fact that the same writer applies the same expression to both a person and animals, also to fish and birds. "So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the BREATH OF LIFE...And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming that the swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, ALL IN WHOSE NOSTRILS WAS THE BREATH OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE, DIED " [Genesis 7:15-22 New American Standard Bible, also Ecclesiastes 3:19-20].
"Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils" [Isaiah 2:22]. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can find an immortal soul in this. It is the body that has the breath, and that breath is in its nostrils. Do they think the immortal soul is nothing but breath in the nostrils of man? As long as the "breath of life" is in his nostrils, a person has "life." When the "breath of life" is no longer in his nostrils, he no longer has "life." Instead of saying mankind is immortal and therefore, cannot be destroyed, this is speaking of the frail and perishable nature of a person that their life depends on the breath in the nostrils.
It is even more difficult to understand how anyone can find an immortal soul that cannot die in this when it plainly says, "and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, DIED." Beasts and man BOTH have the breath of life, and BOTH died. Did souls that cannot die, die? The breath of life is not a living, thinking, conscious entity that survives death and lives without the body. "Then the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground [the body without breath was a lifeless person that could not think, see, speak, or feel] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [lives, plural in the Hebrew] and man [the thing that was made of dust] became a living being [nehphesh]." Not "A living being" was put into the thing made of dust.
[3]. A LIVING BEING Genesis 2:7. See "USE OF SOUL [NEHPHESH] IN THE OLD TESTAMENT" in the first part of this chapter, all living being are a nehphesh. The argument of many seems to be that God made man out of the elements He had created, then super-added a living being to the man making him a dual being. It does not say God made a being without life and then put another living being in the lifeless one. It says God made the man and then put life into him. Plato's soul was put into the prison house, the body at birth and freed from it at death. While in the prison house of man, the soul uses its eyes to see, its ears to hear, and uses all the body. If it were a living being that was put into the body, could it see, hear, etc., before without the eyes and ears of the body, and can it do so after the death of the body? If it were not capable of performing these functions without the body, how can it do so after the death of the body? THE LIFELESS BODY BECAME A LIVING BEING WHEN GOD BREATHED INTO ITS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE AND WHEN THE BREATH OF LIFE LEAVES THE BODY, IT BECOMES A LIFELESS BODY. IT WAS LIFE GIVEN TO THE BODY, NOT AN IMMORTAL LIVING BEING IMPRISONED IN IT THAT WAS BETTER OFF WITHOUT IT.
[4]. "YOU SURELY SHALL NOT DIE" [Genesis 3]. WHERE DID THE IDEA OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL ORIGINATE? Not from the first lie as many believe. Adam and Eve were told, "YOU [not your soul] shall not eat of it, neither shall YOU [not your soul] touch it, lest YOU [not your soul] die." Satan said, "YOU [not your soul] shall not surely die." They were not told their "souls" would die. THEY [Adam and Eve] not their "soul" were sent out of the Garden of Eden "lest HE [not his soul] put forth HIS [not his soul] hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, AND LIVE FOREVER." Not their "immaterial, invisible" undying soul eats and lives forever. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT A SOUL IN GENESIS CHAPTER THREE, BUT THIS CHAPTER IS USED TO PROVE A PERSON HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL THAT CANNOT DIE; AND NOT ONE WORD ABOUT "HELL" IN GENESIS CHAPTER THREE, BUT THIS CHAPTER IS ALSO USED TO PROVE ETERNAL TORMENT.
The warning for eating of the tree was "YOU shall surely die." God's sentence for eating of the tree was "to dust YOU shall return" [not your soul shall return to dust]. In God's statement to Adam, the personal pronouns "you" and "your" are used about fifteen times (it varies in different translations). "Then to Adam He said, 'Because YOU have listened to the voice of YOUR wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded YOU, saying, YOU shall not eat from it; cursed is the ground because of YOU; in toil YOU shall eat of it all the days of YOUR life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for YOU; and YOU shall eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of YOUR face YOU shall eat bread, till YOU return to the ground, because from it YOU were taken; for YOU are dust, and to dust YOU shall return" [New American Standard Version]. The "YOU" is Adam, not just an immaterial, invisible part of Adam. Those who use this passage to teach a person has an immortal soul pick one of the many of the "YOU'S" and say only this one is an immortal part of Adam but say nothing of the others and hope you do not see the others for their immortal "immaterial, invisible part of man" cannot eat, will not return to the ground, does not sweat, etc. This passage is used to teach the doctrine of an immortal soul [nehphesh] even though it says nothing of a soul [nehphesh] or immortality, and at the same time, death, which is in the passage, is removed and made not to exist. WHY WOULD AN IMMORTAL, IMMATERIAL SOUL THAT CANNOT DIE HAVE ANY NEED OF THE TREE OF LIFE TO LIVE?
It was a real earthly tree with a real earthly fruit that a real earthly person with a real earthly hand that was told HE would die if HE eats, and a real earthly person that was put out of a real garden "lest HE [not his soul] put forth HIS hand [not his soul's hand], and take also of the real tree of life by eating the fruit HE would have had in the same hand HE put forth [not his soul eating], AND LIVE FOREVER." TO WHAT PART OF A PERSON DID LIVING DEPEND ON EATING OF THE TREE OF LIFE? To Adam, or an "immaterial, invisible" immortal part of Adam that could not die even if it did not eat? Would it not be a contradiction to say Adam had an immortal soul that could not die and must live forever, but it depended on eating of the tree of life to live, or that the soul that could not die would die if it did not eat of the tree of life? Yet, we are told that all, even Adam, have an immortal soul that will live forever and this deathless soul has no need of the tree of life and that this deathless part of a person is the only part of a person that will ever live forever; therefore, what could the tree of life give to Adam's deathless soul that it did not already have and that according to this doctrine it did not lose by eating of the tree? Nothing. This doctrine makes the flaming sword to keep Adam from the tree of life so that he may eat and live forever useless, for it makes Adam live forever if he eats or if he does not eat.
It was Adam that God said would die if he ate, not an immortal soul that cannot die. It was Adam that Satan said would not die if he did eat, not an immortal deathless soul would not die. "You shall surely die" is far from saying, "When you die, a part of you will live and suffer eternal torment" but many read this into it. Was Adam created mortal or immoral? If immortal, how could he be threatened with death when he could not die? If he were immortal, he would be death-proof; therefore, God's sentence of death if he eats would have been a lie.
"It is appointed unto man to die, and after this comes the judgment" [Hebrews 9:27]. Not just part of a person, not only the body of the man. This is changed to read only your outer shell, and not the real YOU shall die. "In the day YOU eat thereof YOU shall surely die" is not, "After the death of your body, your soul, a part of you, shall be eternity alive in Hell and tormented by God" but this is what many read into it. Some say this is not physical death but a spiritual death. Then where did physical death come from? What death was passed unto ALL men [Romans 5:12]? Is it appointed for a man to die, or changed to be appointed for only a part of a man to die?
"The first man is of the earth, earthy" [1 Corinthians 15:47; Ecclesiastes 3:20].
For a person to have an immortal soul two kinds of life must be read into this, therefore, two kinds of death with one not being a death at all, but eternal life with torment. Look in your concordance and you will see that "Spiritual life" or "spiritual death" which is read into this is not in the Bible. It is argued that Adam did not die physically that day, therefore, "spiritual death" was Adam's penalty for eating. If this were true, why did he ever die a physical death, and how did physical death come into the world? In the Hebrew the penalty was "dying YOU shall die." It was the "living being" [Genesis 2:7] that would die, not an immortal soul that cannot die but was told that it would die anyway. Death came into the world through Adam and all die [1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12-21]. "And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this comes judgment" [Hebrews 9:27]. The death that came into the world by Adam's sin is the same death that he died for eating, a physical death. "By the sweat of your face YOU shall eat bread, till YOU return to the ground, because from it YOU were taken; for YOU are dust, and to dust YOU shall return" [Genesis 2:19]. It was not the death of Adam's "soul," an inward immortal never dying part of Adam that could not die. Adam could not have understood that YOU was only his body, and that only a part of the YOU would die, but the rest of the YOU would not die but would live forever in torment unless he had a revelation from God to tell him a part of him was deathless. There is no such revelation recorded in Genesis although it is repeatedly read into it today. Adam's undying soul theory is based on the silence recorded in Genesis two and three. Edward White, "No word is said either before the fall, or on the approach of the Judge, or afterwards, of Adam's possession of a deathless soul, when his mortal integer was broken up;--not a word is uttered in the divine comment on the curse, of an eternity of misery to be endured by the soul after dissolution of the Man. Indeed, that notion seems to deserve little else than the scorn, which Locke bestows upon it. It is the gratuitous invention of theologians who have forfeited the claim to be listened to in that matter by their perverse departure from the record." Life In Christ, Page 212, 1878.
A definition of death from the Bible. "Till YOU return to the ground, because from it YOU were taken; for YOU are dust, and to dust YOU shall return," and without the resurrection, all would forever remain dust. But, God's definition of death cannot be believed by any that believe the soul is immortal.
ANOTHER USE OF "YOU SHALL SURELY DIE" [the same words in the Hebrew]. Solomon told Shimei to "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither. For on the day you go out, and pass over the brook Kidron, know you for certain that YOU SHALL SURELY DIE" [1 Kings 2:37]. He did go out of Jerusalem, and he did die just as Adam did but not on the very day he went out.
IF HELL WERE ADAM'S SENTENCE: "Die" must be changed into an eternal life for a part of Adam but not his body. If Hell was Adam's sentence then God was unclear in His warning and unclear in the sentence. What was the penalty God give in Genesis 3:9-24?
HOW CAN ANYONE GET HELL OUT OF THIS SENTENCE? THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT AN IMMORTAL, IMMATERIAL PART OF A PERSON IN IT AND NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HELL OR TORMENT AFTER DEATH IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AFTER DEATH IN IT. THE PENALTY FOR EATING ENDED WHEN THEY RETURNED TO THE GROUND.
WHAT IS THE DEATH THAT CAME INTO THE WOULD AND PASSED UNTO ALL THROUGH ADAM'S SIN? "It seems a strange way of understanding a law which requires the plainest and direct words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery...I confess that by death, here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came upon Adam and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise, under which death they should have lain forever had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ" John Locke, "Reasonableness of Christianity."
The "soul" as it is used today will live forever if it eats of this fruit or does not eat of it, and the teaching is that not even God can keep it from living forever. If God had made men with unconditional immortality, would it have done any good to put him out of the garden to keep him from eating of the tree of life to live forever? If Adam were made with an immortal undying part, he would have lived forever and could not have died even if he did not eat of the tree of life.
Adam and Eve passed from a state in the garden where they had access to the tree of life, where it was possible for them to live forever, to a state where it was impossible for them not to die. The day they did eat was the beginning of the dying process ["Dying you shall die"]. There is nothing in this about a person being a dual being with an immortal soul, but most read it into this. It was the whole person as he was then, which would have lived forever if he had eaten of the tree of life. It was the whole person, not just some inter part of a person, which God said would die. HOW COULD AN "IMMATERIAL INVISIBLE" PART OF A PERSON EAT OF A VISIBLE MATERIAL TREE? Satan's lie was that THEY, not some inter part of them, would not die. The presence of the "tree of life" in Eden indicates that immortality was conditional on eating of that tree. To prevent the possibility of being able to "live forever" [Genesis 3:22] God put a barrier to the garden when Adam was put out of Eden and the dying process began.
YOUNG'S Literal Translation Genesis 2:17 "For in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die."
ADAM CLARKE "Thou shall surely die. Literally, a death thou shall die; or, dying thou shall die-from that moment thou shall become mortal, and shall continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying."
JOHN WESLEY "Thou shall die-That is, thou shalt lose all the happiness thou hast either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface and attend it. This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin."
The New JOHN GILL Exposition of the Entire Bible "For in the day thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die; or in dying, die; which denotes the certainty of it...man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not forever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, a