Hebrews 9:27 vs Lazarus: Die only once?

[Pegg]

That's okay, you don't have to actually answer what "And then the judgment" means.

And Plato's got some good ideas, but he didn't write the concept of the afterlife, which has existed for ages since probably even before the Sumerians.

If you want to ascribe all the Jewish teachings to "Hellenistic Paganism" about the Afterlife, that's a nice opinion but simply isn't historically accurate whatsoever.

Russel has many followers too, the idea that the Israelites were told to avoid speaking to the dead when they weren't actually speaking to the dead kind of implies Moses was told a lie. The idea that the text specifically says it was in fact Samuel's soul implies the author of Samuel was lying too.

it was written in the mosaic law that you were not to consult a spirit medium or consult the dead
“As for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail.” (Le 20:6, 27)

'...There should not be found in you . . . anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead.”—De 18:9-11.


Lets obey the law in this regard to reject all forms of spiritism hey. God must have a good reason for condemning the practice.

 

[Shermana]

it was written in the mosaic law that you were not to consult a spirit medium or consult the dead
“As for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail.” (Le 20:6, 27)

'...There should not be found in you . . . anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead.”—De 18:9-11.


Lets obey the law in this regard to reject all forms of spiritism hey. God must have a good reason for condemning the practice.

You are confusing the concept of "Spiritism" with "belief in the existence of Spirits" and "The ability to do that which is prohibited because such spirits exist".

So when would you like to actually address the meaning of Hebrews 9:27? Or were you in fact saying that there is NO judgment afterwards?

 

[Pegg]

You are confusing the concept of "Spiritism" with "belief in the existence of Spirits" and "The ability to do that which is prohibited because such spirits exist".

So when would you like to actually address the meaning of Hebrews 9:27? Or were you in fact saying that there is NO judgment afterwards?

im not going to argue over your belief in an afterlife. You can believe it, but I dont think its right to attribute such ideas to Jesus or his followers.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Except for the fact that they were practicing baptisims for the dead, on behalf of the dead.
It is interesting to note all of the many different translations of 1st Corinthians 15:29.


New International Version (©1984)
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

New Living Translation (©2007)
If the dead will not be raised, what point is there in people being baptized for those who are dead? Why do it unless the dead will someday rise again?

English Standard Version (©2001)
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

International Standard Version (©2008)
Otherwise, what will those people do who are being baptized because of those who have died? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptized because of them?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Otherwise, what shall those do who are baptized for the sake of the dead, if the dead do not live again? Why are they baptized for the sake of the dead?

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
However, people are baptized because the dead [will come back to life]. What will they do? If the dead can't come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can [come back to life]?

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

American King James Version
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

American Standard Version
Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Douay-Rheims Bible
Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?

Darby Bible Translation
Since what shall the baptised for the dead do if those that are dead rise not at all? why also are they baptised for them?

English Revised Version
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Webster's Bible Translation
Else what will they do, who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Weymouth New Testament
Otherwise what will become of those who got themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead do not rise at all, why are these baptized for them?

World English Bible
Or else what will they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead aren't raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?

Young's Literal Translation
Seeing what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for the dead?

-Notice how it never says that they were baptized for themselves for when they die, instead it says, “for them”, or “for the dead,” meaning for those who are dead, or on behalf of those who are dead.

 

[Shermana]

im not going to argue over your belief in an afterlife. You can believe it, but I dont think its right to attribute such ideas to Jesus or his followers.

And I don't think its right to ignore all of Jesus's explicit references to the soul and the afterlife or twist them into some obscure metaphor that isn't very well explained.

And I don't think its right to consistently ignore the question of what exactly "And then the judgment" means, unless you are in fact agreeing that this verse is wrong altogether which it seems you are. So if you feel like actually explaining your take on Hebrews 9:27, feel free.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

It turns out that the New World Translation has this scripture translated very differently. It says, “Otherwise, what will they do who are being baptized for the purpose of [being] dead ones? If the dead are not to be raised up at all, why are they also being baptized for the purpose of [being] such?”
o It seems the KJV says that people were being baptized on behalf of other people who were dead, while the NWT says that these people were being baptized for their own behalf because they were going to die someday. There is a clear difference here.

My understanding of brackets used in the scriptures is that if it is found in brackets it is something that the translators added. If my understanding on this is correct then the word [being] is something that was not found in the original translation, but is something that was added to it.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is right to add to the Bible?

 

[Shermana]

It turns out that the New World Translation has this scripture translated very differently. It says, “Otherwise, what will they do who are being baptized for the purpose of [being] dead ones? If the dead are not to be raised up at all, why are they also being baptized for the purpose of [being] such?”
o It seems the KJV says that people were being baptized on behalf of other people who were dead, while the NWT says that these people were being baptized for their own behalf because they were going to die someday. There is a clear difference here.

My understanding of brackets used in the scriptures is that if it is found in brackets it is something that the translators added. If my understanding on this is correct then the word [being] is something that was not found in the original translation, but is something that was added to it.

Gotta give the LDS some credit on this one, it does seem to indicate that baptisms were done for the sake of the deceased.

The commentators often try their best to weasel around this one and twist its otherwise plain meaning, Clarke is honest enough to admit its "the most difficult passage of the NT" and Barnes admits that it's the most disputed passage of all the commentators.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Else what shall they do ... - The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning

.

It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost.

(4) by others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:

The best he can do is call it contrary to scripture, and there's no evidence of ANY custom prevailing at the time of Paul really.

(a) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.

(b) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead - This is certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament; for, notwithstanding the greatest and wisest men have labored to explain it, there are to this day nearly as many different interpretations of it as there are interpreters. I shall not employ my time, nor that of my reader, with a vast number of discordant and conflicting opinions; I shall make a few remarks:

And the NWT simply has no grammatical basis for its interpretation there.

 

[Pegg]

And I don't think its right to ignore all of Jesus's explicit references to the soul and the afterlife or twist them into some obscure metaphor that isn't very well explained.

the meaning of the words for soul/spirit have been changed since the first century.

soul/nephesh meant living person to Jesus and his diciples
spirit/ruach meant breath as in the lifegiving force inside living beings.
sheol/hell meant the grave of mankind

You are going by greek philosophers meanings of such words. I'll stick with the original meanings of the words as Jesus used them back then....thats really the only way to understand what he meant when he said certain things.

And I don't think its right to consistently ignore the question of what exactly "And then the judgment" means, unless you are in fact agreeing that this verse is wrong altogether which it seems you are. So if you feel like actually explaining your take on Hebrews 9:27, feel free.

i already did that.

 

[Shermana]

the meaning of the words for soul/spirit have been changed since the first century.

Proof please.

soul/nephesh meant living person to Jesus and his diciples
spirit/ruach meant breath as in the lifegiving force inside living beings.
sheol/hell meant the grave of mankind

The word is in fact used to describe the life itself, as well as the Spirit inside in the OT, it is used both ways and there's no way you can deny that really. The Spirit is described as separate from the body as an actual entity. David speaks to his own Soul in the Psalms for example.

And then there's the whole "Land of shades" thing. It's not metaphorical.

You are going by greek philosophers meanings of such words. I'll stick with the original meanings of the words as Jesus used them back then....thats really the only way to understand what he meant when he said certain things.

You'll have to prove that the Greek philosophers first used this definition, and that the OT doesn't ever use the word Spirit to mean an actual entity that lives on. Especially when the Witch of Endor calls Samuel's Spirit. If they wanted to let us know it was a Demon, they would have said so. The mere fact that they reference the Spirit as such means that they used the term as such. The end.

i already did that.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, so you confirm that you outright deny that there will be a judgment after death then. Correct?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

the meaning of the words for soul/spirit have been changed since the first century.

soul/nephesh meant living person to Jesus and his diciples
spirit/ruach meant breath as in the lifegiving force inside living beings.
sheol/hell meant the grave of mankind

You are going by greek philosophers meanings of such words. I'll stick with the original meanings of the words as Jesus used them back then....thats really the only way to understand what he meant when he said certain things.




i already did that.

Lets look at the scriptures shall we...

Ecclesiastes 7:8-9
"Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools."

- According to this our spirits can be hasty, proud, patient, or angry and apparently we have the ability to choose how our spirit feels.




Proverbs 18:14
"The spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity; but a wounded spirit who can bear?"

-Our spirits can be wounded

Genesis 41:38
"38 And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?"

- Apparently the Spirit of God isn't in everyone.

Genesis 45:27
27 "And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived"

- Our spirits can be revived

Genesis 41:8
8 And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.

-Our spirits can be troubled





Exodus 6:9
9 ¶And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

-Our spirits can feel anguish

Numbers 14:24
24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

-Interesting, if his spirit is the spirit of God, and the other spirit is the spirit of God, why is it saying he has another spirit with him, would it not be the same spirit?

1 Samuel 28:15
15 ¶And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.

- Obviously you don't believe it was actually Samuel who spoke to Saul, even though the scripture says it was Samuel. But if the spirit of God had left him and his spirit was God's spirit, would he not be dead?

There are a TON more references I could pull out, but I will call that good for now All of the above is evidence that our spirits can feel and think as well as that of the spirits back in the day.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

the meaning of the words for soul/spirit have been changed since the first century.

soul/nephesh meant living person to Jesus and his diciples
spirit/ruach meant breath as in the lifegiving force inside living beings.
sheol/hell meant the grave of mankind

You are going by greek philosophers meanings of such words. I'll stick with the original meanings of the words as Jesus used them back then....thats really the only way to understand what he meant when he said certain things.




i already did that.

Do you happen to have an ancient Greek Dictionary to confirm your claim to the ancient definition of Sheol and Hades being different than it is today?
I don't, but I do have these...

Dictionary.com
She•ol
   [shee-ohl] Show IPA
noun (in hebrew theology)
1.
the abode of the dead or of departed spirits.
2.
( lowercase ) hell.

World English Dictionary
Sheol (ˈʃiːəʊl, -ɒl)

— n
1. the abode of the dead
2. ( often not capital ) hell

[C16: from Hebrew shĕ'ōl ]



The Easton Bible Dictionary
Sheol definition

(Heb., "the all demanding world" = Gr. Hades, "the unknownregion"), the invisible world of departed souls. (See HELL.)

Merriam-Webster Dictioinary
Definition of SHEOL
: the abode of the dead in early Hebrew thought
Origin of SHEOL
Hebrew Shĕ'ōl
First Known Use: 1597


Dictionary.com
Ha•des
   [hey-deez] Show IPA
noun
1.Classical Mythology .
a.the underworld inhabited by departed souls.
b.the god ruling the underworld; Pluto.
2.(in the Revised Version of the New Testament) the abode or state of the dead.
3.( often lowercase ) hell.








World English Dictionary
Hades (ˈheɪdiːz)

— n
1. Greek myth
a. the underworld abode of the souls of the dead
b. Pluto, the god of the underworld, brother of Zeus andhusband of Persephone
2. New Testament the abode or state of the dead
3. informal ( often not capital ) hell
The American Heritage Cultural Dictionary
Hades

[Roman name Pluto]
The Greek and Roman god of the underworld and the ruler of thedead. Also called Dis. The underworld itself was also known to the Greeks as Hades.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Hades definition

that which is out of sight, a Greek word used to denote thestate or place of the dead. All the dead alike go into this place.To be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hades,are equivalent expressions. In the LXX. this word is the usualrendering of the Hebrew sheol, the common receptacle of thedeparted (Gen. 42:38; Ps. 139:8; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 14:9). Thisterm is of comparatively rare occurrence in the Greek NewTestament. Our Lord speaks of Capernaum as being "broughtdown to hell" (hades), i.e., simply to the lowest debasement,(Matt. 11:23). It is contemplated as a kind of kingdom whichcould never overturn the foundation of Christ's kingdom (16:18),i.e., Christ's church can never die. In Luke 16:23 it is mostdistinctly associated with the doom and misery of the lost. InActs 2:27-31 Peter quotes the LXX. version of Ps. 16:8-11,plainly for the purpose of proving our Lord's resurrection from thedead. David was left in the place of the dead, and his body sawcorruption. Not so with Christ. According to ancient prophecy(Ps. 30:3) he was recalled to life.


Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary
Ha•des
noun \ˈhā-(&#716dēz\
Definition of HADES
1: PLUTO
2: the underground abode of the dead in Greek mythology
3: SHEOL
4 often not capitalized : HELL 1a
See Hades defined for English-language learners »
Origin of HADES
Greek Aidēs, Āidēs, Haidēs
First Known Use: 1597



I believe that the words Sheol and Hades refer to Pit or grave in some instances in the Bible, but the words Sheol and Hades also mean the aboding place of the departed spirits.

There is a lot of evidence going in both directions that Sheol and Hades mean
1) The grave,
or
2) A dwelling place of departed spirits.
I do not see enough evidence to out rule one or the other.​

 

[Pegg]

I believe that the words Sheol and Hades refer to Pit or grave in some instances in the Bible, but the words Sheol and Hades also mean the aboding place of the departed spirits.

There is a lot of evidence going in both directions that Sheol and Hades mean
1) The grave,
or
2) A dwelling place of departed spirits.
I do not see enough evidence to out rule one or the other.​

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276) noted: “Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth. . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles—all slept together without awareness of one another.”


but yeah, whatever you want to call it is up to you.

 

[Shermana]

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276) noted: “Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth. . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles—all slept together without awareness of one another.”


but yeah, whatever you want to call it is up to you.

How about we call it the "land of shades"?

 

[Pegg]

How about we call it the "land of shades"?

:beach:

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Not saying you should trust everything you read on Wikipedia, but this was interesting...

"Sheol and the Old Testament
Beneath the earth is Sheol, the abode of the rephaim (shades),[67] although it is not entirely clear whether all who died became shades, or only the "mighty dead" (compare Psalm 88:10 with Isaiah 14:9 and 26:14).[68] Some biblical passages state that God has no presence in the underworld: "In death there is no remembrance of Thee, in Sheol who shall give Thee thanks?" (Psalm 6).[69] Others imply that the dead themselves are in some sense semi-divine, like the shade of the prophet Samuel, who is called an elohim, the same word used for God and gods.[70] Still other passages state God's power over Sheol as over the rest of his creation: "Tho they (the wicked) dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them..." (Amos 9:2).[71]
[edit]The inter-Testamental period
See also: Intertestamental period
The Old Testament Sheol was simply the home of all the dead, good and bad alike.[72] In the Hellenistic period the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, perhaps under the influence of Greek thought, came to believe that the good would not die but would go directly to God, while the wicked would really die and go to the realm of Hades, god of the underworld, where they would perhaps suffer torment.[73] 1 Enoch, dating from the period between the Old and New Testaments, separates the dead into the righteous and the wicked, and provides the former with a spring, perhaps signifying that these are the "living" (i.e. a spring) waters of life.[74] By the time of Jesus the idea had developed that the wicked began their punishment in Hades immediately on dying, as reflected in the parable of Dives and Lazarus.[73]"

 

[Pegg]

wiki isnt always wrong

In the Hellenistic period the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, perhaps under the influence of Greek thought, came to believe that the good would not die but would go directly to God

exactly what happened....religious teachers began mixing pagan ideas with Hebrew ones. Eventually they clung to the pagan ideas and forgot all about the hebrew truths.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

now we come back to exactly what the Hebrew truths were and how do you recognize them. Now this goes back again to my 3 big questions...

Issues in Understanding
and Translating the Bible
Issue #1
• There is no “original” Hebrew manuscript that we have to translate the Bible from. In other words we have copies of copies of copies and no manuscript today that is in Moses’s handwriting. The issue here is that we have many different manuscripts that are about the same things, but not all of them are exactly the same, for example there is the Masoretic text which is what the King James Bible is mostly translated from, but there is also the Septuagint which contains several of the oldest ancient translations of the Old Testament, however there are also the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the oldest Biblical but each one is different, so if each manuscript is different, which is the most right?

Old Testament Manuscripts:
-Septugint
-Samaritan Pentateuch
-Dead Sea Scrolls
-Targum
-Diatessaron
-Muratorian fragment
-Pe****ta
-Vetus Catina
-Masoretic Text

New Testament Manuscripts:
-Alexandrian
-Egyptian
-Eclectic
-Western
-Byzantine
Issue #2
• Words with multiple definitions.
Some Bibles are different translations of the same manuscript.
Most words in most languages have ten or more definitions making reading and understanding the interpretation of each word in a verse a big multiple choice test. My question is where is the answer key? It has been said that it is found in the cross references, but where is the answer key to those cross references to verify that the interpretation of those cross references have the correct translation?
Issue # 3
• Idioms- If the Bible interprets itself where does it give an explanation of what each idiom means?
For example:
- To covereth one’s feet or go down for water both mean to go to the bathroom (found in 1Sam. 24:3 and Ex 7:15
- wink with the eye means to show genuine hatred (Ps. 35:19)
- To send hornets means to send the military (Ex. 23:28)
- To speak to the rock means to take the rock off the well (Num. 20:8)
- To have teeth as white as milk means to have abundant flocks (Gen. 29:12)
- And bald head means to need to repent (2 Kings:23)

These 3 big issues are not reasons to distrust the Bible by any means, but rather they are reasons to distrust individual translations and interpretations of the Bible, and provide reasons to double check everything and take note of what is the same and what is different between translations. These three issues show the great need for modern day revelation, the need for God to tell us personally what is true. James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God...

 

[Shermana]

wiki isnt always wrong

In the Hellenistic period the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, perhaps under the influence of Greek thought, came to believe that the good would not die but would go directly to God

exactly what happened....religious teachers began mixing pagan ideas with Hebrew ones. Eventually they clung to the pagan ideas and forgot all about the hebrew truths.

There's no doubt that there was Hellinization among some Jewish thought.

But your claim that the afterlife of the Soul being a direct product of such is so wrong and twists the text in so many ways it's ridiculous. If anything, the idea that the Soul does not go anywhere was a Greek idea contemporary to the time of the Hellenization.

So therefore, it's YOUR idea that may be the most "Pagan" and "Hellenic" here. Ecclesiastes, the way you interpret it, is oft accused of being the product of such Hellenistic ideas.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I find it interesting how Pegg completely ignored that big statement on baptisms for the dead.