Hebrews 9:27 vs Lazarus: Die only once?

[Shermana]

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

Or the definitions of "Spirit" according to the OT meaning more than just "The life".

I used to find it interesting just how many points and rebuttals get completely ignored on this subject but now it's just business as usual.

It is quite fascinating how so many commentators consider the Baptism for the dead to be the "Most difficult passage of the NT" and "Most disputed passage"........The way they twist and turn the text to get it to mean something other than its plain reading is entertaining.

 

[Pegg]

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.

you dont have to go far to find out where the idea of the immortal soul originated

I can tell you where it 'did not' originate.

 

[Shermana]

you dont have to go far to find out where the idea of the immortal soul originated

I can tell you where it 'did not' originate.

Well whenever you'd like to present a source that decisively proves that the idea did not exist at the time of 700 B.C. or so when the Torah was said to be written which includes things like a prohibition on speaking to the dead, and when you'd like to prove that it means that no talking to demons who aren't really souls of the dead but they're called "the dead" anyway, feel free to substantiate your claims.

Feel free to prove that the idea of the Afterlife originated with the later-era Hellenic period and the Israelites picked it up from them.

What you won't be able to do is prove that it "did not" exist with the Hebrews since the earliest records of their beliefs.

Like I said, the idea that there is NO soul that lives on in an afterlife is the Pagan Hellenic idea if anything.

 

[Pegg]

Well whenever you'd like to present a source that decisively proves that the idea did not exist at the time of 700 B.C. or so when the Torah was said to be written which includes things like a prohibition on speaking to the dead, and when you'd like to prove that it means that no talking to demons who aren't really souls of the dead but they're called "the dead" anyway, feel free to substantiate your claims.

Feel free to prove that the idea of the Afterlife originated with the later-era Hellenic period and the Israelites picked it up from them.

What you won't be able to do is prove that it "did not" exist with the Hebrews since the earliest records of their beliefs.

Like I said, the idea that there is NO soul that lives on in an afterlife is the Pagan Hellenic idea if anything.

the idea of the immortal soul goes back further then greece... it goes back to the Egyptians....you can see it written up on their walls in hyroglyphics. Babylon also taught such ideas, then Greece... all the pagan nations believed it, but Isreal were different. The writers of the hebrew scriptures do not promote the idea at all.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

the idea of the immortal soul goes back further then greece... it goes back to the Egyptians....you can see it written up on their walls in hyroglyphics. Babylon also taught such ideas, then Greece... all the pagan nations believed it, but Isreal were different. The writers of the hebrew scriptures do not promote the idea at all.

If you would actually read the references I posted concerning the spirit of man you would see otherwise.

 

[Shermana]

the idea of the immortal soul goes back further then greece... it goes back to the Egyptians....you can see it written up on their walls in hyroglyphics. Babylon also taught such ideas, then Greece... all the pagan nations believed it, but Isreal were different. The writers of the hebrew scriptures do not promote the idea at all.

No, the Hebrew scriptures do in fact promote the idea, this has been demonstrated over and over again. You're the one who's saying things like explicit references to the Soul of Samuel were REALLY meant as references to demons (indicating that the author of Samuel was lying since he didn't point this out), and that it wasn't really possible to contact the "Spirits of the dead" even though it specifically forbids such as if its possible to do so. Likewise, you have ignored a host of passages kindly provided by Yaddoe that clearly indicate the Soul being used in a context other than just "The life" itself. And you have brushed off explicit references by Jesus as if they are all metaphorical even in their most direct usages.

And as I've pointed out, it seems you're denying Hebrews 9:27 altogether by saying that there is no judgment of each man after death!

What your argument is is that the Hebrew scriptures don't really mean what they explicitly say. That's not a valid argument by any stretch.

 

[Pegg]

No, the Hebrew scriptures do in fact promote the idea, this has been demonstrated over and over again. You're the one who's saying things like explicit references to the Soul of Samuel were REALLY meant as references to demons (indicating that the author of Samuel was lying since he didn't point this out), and that it wasn't really possible to contact the "Spirits of the dead" even though it specifically forbids such.

What your argument is that the Hebrew scriptures don't really mean what they explicitly say. That's not a valid argument by any stretch.

no, the meaning of those words (soul/spirit/hell) in todays language is not the same meaning as back then when it was written.

You read the bible with the current meaning of those words....but the bible writers had a different idea as to what they meant.

 

[Shermana]

no, the meaning of those words (soul/spirit/hell) in todays language is not the same meaning as back then when it was written.

You read the bible with the current meaning of those words....but the bible writers had a different idea as to what they meant.

So when do you plan on proving this assertion you keep repeating?

When would you like to prove that the author of Samuel REALLY meant "demon" by "The spirit of Samuel"?

When would you like to prove that "Do not consult the dead" REALLY meant "Do not contact demons who have never actually lived in the flesh"?

When would you like to prove that "Land of Shades" never meant an actual realm of the dead?

But I thank you for demonstrating that you basically deny what Hebrews 9:27 says.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

no, the meaning of those words (soul/spirit/hell) in todays language is not the same meaning as back then when it was written.

You read the bible with the current meaning of those words....but the bible writers had a different idea as to what they meant.

I did give you a bunch of modern dictionary references yes,
but I also read it and defined it by the sentences they were found in.
Spirit being troubled, injured, joyful etc.

Was it not you who said Context context context?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So if that's not the kind of death being referred to, then the argument that Hebrews 9:27 denies reincarnation is debunked, since one can die in the flesh yet not "die" in whatever death is being described before "the judgment" in that context of only living once.

No doubt.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

John 3:13 Jesus said: "Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man"

Even of King David it is said by the Apostle Peter: “David, . . . both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. . . . David did not ascend to the heavens.” Acts 2:29, 34

So if Jesus said no one had gone to heaven, and even someone like King David had not gone into heaven, how can it be said that anyone goes to heaven when they die?. Its not a christian teaching. Christ did not believe these ideas...he taught us very clearly that 'no man has ascended into heaven'

I believe Jesus teachings over the teachings of anyone else.

It depends how you interprete those verses.
But I was mainly interested how you concluded that the purpose of Jesus in Resurrecting Laz. was for "demonstrations of Gods power and ability to restore the dead to life."

Second I was interested how you conluded Laz. was resurrected in literal sense?

For example, remember the story of the old man and his son:

"For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate." Luke 15:24

his son was dead, means he was dead in sin. He was dead in a spiritual sense.
When he became rightous, he was told "alive" thus he was resurrected in a spiritual sense, not literally. Likewise, Jesus said, "Let the Dead bury their own dead" thus, the Authors of Bible, did not mean a literal Resurrection.
How do we know the story of Laz. being resurrected must be interpreted "literally"?

 

[Pegg]

It depends how you interprete those verses.
But I was mainly interested how you concluded that the purpose of Jesus in Resurrecting Laz. was for "demonstrations of Gods power and ability to restore the dead to life."

Second I was interested how you conluded Laz. was resurrected in literal sense?

The account of the raising of Lazarus is presented in the Gospel of John as an historical fact, not as a parable.

The evidence that Jesus used the death as an opportunity to show Gods power and instill faith in his followers is seen from the fact that when Mary and Martha (Lazarus sisters) sent for Jesus to come to Lazarus, it was when Lazarus was still alive but very sick. Jesus got the message, but he didnt come immediately....he delayed for 2 more days before he started heading to the home of Lazarus.

John makes a point of this in the account:

John 11:6 However, when he heard that he was sick, then he actually remained two days in the place where he was. ...
11 He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Laz′a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.”

When they finally reached Lazarus, he was already in a burial tomb... Jesus called him out of the tomb with witnesses present and Lazarus came out still wrapped in burial clothes.

For example, remember the story of the old man and his son:

"For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate." Luke 15:24

his son was dead, means he was dead in sin. He was dead in a spiritual sense.
When he became rightous, he was told "alive" thus he was resurrected in a spiritual sense, not literally. Likewise, Jesus said, "Let the Dead bury their own dead" thus, the Authors of Bible, did not mean a literal Resurrection.
How do we know the story of Laz. being resurrected must be interpreted "literally"?

this story is a parable. It was a story to illustrate a point about repentance and the depth of Gods forgiveness and mercy.

Lazarus resurrection was not a parable, it was a real event. A man had died, Jesus came and brought him back to life...and then Jesus said to them who witnessed it:

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The account of the raising of Lazarus is presented in the Gospel of John as an historical fact, not as a parable.

As a matter of fact no where the Authors of Bible said they are writing "literal" historical fact.

They said all scriptures are inspired by God.

The evidence that Jesus used the death as an opportunity to show Gods power and instill faith in his followers is seen from the fact that when Mary and Martha (Lazarus sisters) sent for Jesus to come to Lazarus, it was when Lazarus was still alive but very sick. Jesus got the message, but he didnt come immediately....he delayed for 2 more days before he started heading to the home of Lazarus.

John makes a point of this in the account:

John 11:6 However, when he heard that he was sick, then he actually remained two days in the place where he was. ...
11 He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Laz′a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.”

When they finally reached Lazarus, he was already in a burial tomb... Jesus called him out of the tomb with witnesses present and Lazarus came out still wrapped in burial clothes.

Dear Peg, in other places in Bible (Hebrew and NT) the expression being in "tomb" has also been used in a symbolic way. Meaning being dead in the Tomb of sinful desires.

That Lazare was sick, also can mean, a spritual disease, in a sense that he had a desease of heart. Or impurity of the soul due to being sinful.
In another words, the scripture symbolically is talking about the "Spirit" of Laz. that was sick due to being sinfull, and He was dead and burried in the Tomb of sin and selfish desire.
When Jesus went to him after a few days, He resurrected him by teaching Him the Truth, and giving him Faith.


I think One of the key verses to interprete this story is this verse:

John 11:4 "When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby."


Now we need to carefully analyze what the "Authors" of Bible meant by "gloryfying God", not what we think "glorifying" means.

For that we can refer to other verses which are the key:


Mat. 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."



and

John 15:8 "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit"

Thus it becomes clear that, according to the Authors of Bible, when the followers of Christ become fruitful and do good works and become rigtous, that Glorifies God. Not performing literal Miracles as many would imagine, even as Jesus rejected to do any literal and physical Miracles:


"He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it." Mark 8:12

Lazarus resurrection was not a parable, it was a real event. A man had died, Jesus came and brought him back to life...and then Jesus said to them who witnessed it

Being witness, is also mean those who witnessed that Laz. was a sinful man, but later he became a rightous man (he was dead, then he became alive). Just like the son of the old man, who others were also witness in that party...
Now since Laz. was dead in sin, spiritually sick in the eyes of others, and when Jesus made him spiritually alive, by this God was glorified,

"This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God"

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

As a matter of fact no where the Authors of Bible said they are writing "literal" historical fact.

They said all scriptures are inspired by God.




Dear Peg, in other places in Bible (Hebrew and NT) the expression being in "tomb" has also been used in a symbolic way. Meaning being dead in the Tomb of sinful desires.

That Lazare was sick, also can mean, a spritual disease, in a sense that he had a desease of heart. Or impurity of the soul due to being sinful.
In another words, the scripture symbolically is talking about the "Spirit" of Laz. that was sick due to being sinfull, and He was dead and burried in the Tomb of sin and selfish desire.
When Jesus went to him after a few days, He resurrected him by teaching Him the Truth, and giving him Faith.


I think One of the key verses to interprete this story is this verse:

John 11:4 "When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby."


Now we need to carefully analyze what the "Authors" of Bible meant by "gloryfying God", not what we think "glorifying" means.

For that we can refer to other verses which are the key:


Mat. 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."



and

John 15:8 "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit"

Thus it becomes clear that, according to the Authors of Bible, when the followers of Christ become fruitful and do good works and become rigtous, that Glorifies God. Not performing literal Miracles as many would imagine, even as Jesus rejected to do any literal and physical Miracles:


"He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it." Mark 8:12




Being witness, is also mean those who witnessed that Laz. was a sinful man, but later he became a rightous man (he was dead, then he became alive). Just like the son of the old man, who others were also witness in that party...
Now since Laz. was dead in sin, spiritually sick in the eyes of others, and when Jesus made him spiritually alive, by this God was glorified,

"This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God"

Wow that is definitely a different way of looking at it...
Just goes to show how big of a deal my 3 BIG Biblical questions are

Issues in Understanding
and Translating the Bible
Why the Bible cannot interpret itself and why prophets and apostles are still needed today.
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:
-Septuagint
-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)

 

[e.r.m.]

Man is destined to die once, but God can make exceptions. Jesus made exceptions to the required animal sacrifices, with Zacchaeus, the paralytic, the woman who washed his feet with her hair, and the thief on the cross.

 

[Pegg]

under sin, mankind is destined to die once because the penalty for sin is death.

But God has promised to end sin.....

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Man is destined to die once, but God can make exceptions. Jesus made exceptions to the required animal sacrifices, with Zacchaeus, the paralytic, the woman who washed his feet with her hair, and the thief on the cross.

What were the exceptions with Zacchaeus, the paralytic woman, and the woman who washed his feet?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

under sin, mankind is destined to die once because the penalty for sin is death.

But God has promised to end sin.....

God has promised to take away our agency???

 

[Pegg]

God has promised to take away our agency???

i have no idea what your question means....can you elaborate?

 

[Shermana]

i have no idea what your question means....can you elaborate?

I think he's asking by what you think it means, wherever it says this, that all sin will be removed. Will this be through magic mind control? Or will all the people somehow train themselves to never commit lawlessness again?