Is Soul Sleep Biblical?

[spiderweb]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476 The Apostles’ Creed confesses in the same article Christ’s descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth:

Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell

632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 **Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:**481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression “He descended into hell”, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

I do believe the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that he descended into hell/hades (Acts 2:27), where he preached to those in prison who were awaiting him (1 Peter 3:19-20).

Most of the time in the New Testament the distinction is made that “hell” usually refers to the place of the damned (Greek geenna). While the just in “prison” is usually referred to as Abraham’s bosom, and the Greek word “hades” can refer to either as it is simply the common place of the dead although it is usually translated as hell.

In 2 Peter 2:4 the Greek word tartaroō is used (as opposed to “hades” or “geenna”) and some translations translate it as the “lower hell” to specify the place of the damned as opposed to the “upper hell” (my words) which would be the prison of the just awaiting Christ. On the other hand it could also be expressing a deeper and worse punishment for the devils in this lower hell.

This is just my view and opinion which is open to correction, but it makes sense to me.

Usage of Hades blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&t=KJV
Usage of Geenna blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1067&t=KJV

 

[frangiuliano115]

I do believe the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that he descended into hell/hades (Acts 2:27), where he preached to those in prison who were awaiting him (1 Peter 3:19-20).

Most of the time in the New Testament the distinction is made that “hell” usually refers to the place of the damned (Greek geenna). While the just in “prison” is usually referred to as Abraham’s bosom, and the Greek word “hades” can refer to either as it is simply the common place of the dead although it is usually translated as hell.

In 2 Peter 2:4 the Greek word tartaroō is used (as opposed to “hades” or “geenna”) and some translations translate it as the “lower hell” to specify the place of the damned as opposed to the “upper hell” (my words) which would be the prison of the just awaiting Christ. On the other hand it could also be expressing a deeper and worse punishment for the devils in this lower hell.

This is just my view and opinion which is open to correction, but it makes sense to me.

Usage of Hades blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&t=KJV
Usage of Geenna blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1067&t=KJV

Hi Spiderweb,

No need for correction; much of this is left up to our own interpretation.

I also liked your reply on your previous post up above re soul sleep.

Don’t get scared if I tell you I don’t like the CCC all that much. I was a catechist till last year and had to use it and often times it’s not very clear. I did read the above versus but can’t find my answer.

Do you think the unjust of the O.T. were already in hell (the lower hell I think in your words) BEFORE Jesus was crucified? Do you think this is not answered?

I respect your answer.

Fran

 

[spiderweb]

Don’t get scared if I tell you I don’t like the CCC all that much. I was a catechist till last year and had to use it and often times it’s not very clear. I did read the above versus but can’t find my answer.

Do you think the unjust of the O.T. were already in hell (the lower hell I think in your words) BEFORE Jesus was crucified? Do you think this is not answered?

Fran

I sometimes get frustrated as well when the CCC doesn’t specifically spell out something when I’m trying to dig deeper into any given topic. As regards to your specific question of O.T. people being in hell before Jesus, I don’t think we will ever know for certain in this lifetime. But this is kind of how I see it…

1. Jesus is given the authority to judge all man because he is the Son of Man (John 5:27). Therefor all of mankind is judged by Jesus including those who lived in the O.T., but they had to wait for that event to take place in time.
2. As depicted in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is suffering and Lazarus is not. You could say Lazarus is at rest.
3. In regards to #3, even if both the righteous and the unrighteous were in “hades” the place of the dead, and neither were in Heaven or Hell, one remained in friendship with God and was at peace while the other did not love and so was at enmity with God and was suffering. While heaven and hell are a place, they are also a state of being. So even if the unrighteous are not suffering in eternal hell, they are still suffering from cutting themselves off from God through sin and lack of love.

So with all that in mind, my opinion is that everyone awaited “judgment” to determine heaven or hell, but some were already experiencing the peace of heaven by being in friendship with God or the suffering of hell by being at enmity with God but in both regards not in the fullest way. After Jesus’ incarnation, resurrection, etc. they are now all judged and receive their eternal reward or condemnation.

This is purely speculation on my part, but I actually believe this place still exists possibly for aborted children, unbaptized, etc. At the final judgment, those who are in that prison at that time will be judged in some manner and then Hades and death will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14) and all that will be left is heaven and hell. Or maybe they are judged immediately at death and their judgment is to “wait a little longer” and so they go there to await the final judgment. Again, definitely not a doctrine of the CC, but it makes sense to me and I don’t think it contradicts any defined doctrines.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I sometimes get frustrated as well when the CCC doesn’t specifically spell out something when I’m trying to dig deeper into any given topic. As regards to your specific question of O.T. people being in hell before Jesus, I don’t think we will ever know for certain in this lifetime. But this is kind of how I see it…

1. Jesus is given the authority to judge all man because he is the Son of Man (John 5:27). Therefor all of mankind is judged by Jesus including those who lived in the O.T., but they had to wait for that event to take place in time.
2. As depicted in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is suffering and Lazarus is not. You could say Lazarus is at rest.
3. In regards to #3, even if both the righteous and the unrighteous were in “hades” the place of the dead, and neither were in Heaven or Hell, one remained in friendship with God and was at peace while the other did not love and so was at enmity with God and was suffering. While heaven and hell are a place, they are also a state of being. So even if the unrighteous are not suffering in eternal hell, they are still suffering from cutting themselves off from God through sin and lack of love.

So with all that in mind, my opinion is that everyone awaited “judgment” to determine heaven or hell, but some were already experiencing the peace of heaven by being in friendship with God or the suffering of hell by being at enmity with God but in both regards not in the fullest way. After Jesus’ incarnation, resurrection, etc. they are now all judged and receive their eternal reward or condemnation.

This is purely speculation on my part, but I actually believe this place still exists possibly for aborted children, unbaptized, etc. At the final judgment, those who are in that prison at that time will be judged in some manner and then Hades and death will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14) and all that will be left is heaven and hell. Or maybe they are judged immediately at death and their judgment is to “wait a little longer” and so they go there to await the final judgment. Again, definitely not a doctrine of the CC, but it makes sense to me and I don’t think it contradicts any defined doctrines.

Thanks Spiderweb,

Pope Benedict wrote an ecyclical on the above and I’ll be reading that again too. It’s what started my questioning to begin with. I’m having trouble with that too because I didn’t start out with an open mind. Woe is me!

A catechist friend of mine agrees with you. I always thought Luke 16 spoke of hell and Abraham’s Bossom. When children are being taught about heaven we tell them that Jesus opened the gates of heaven and we try not to get too much into the hell thing; although it is mentioned.

So I thank you very much and will be rereading all you say again tomorrow. It sounds good.

In Christ
Fran

 

[graciew]

Well, Graceview, I understand it as you do.

But there are some who don’t agree with us so I did a mini-study on this.

We can refer back to Luke 16:19–
And that’s good. Okay.

Two points, if you care to help out:

1. What about this idea that Jesus went to hell to preach to the prisoners there? It has to do with the population that was damned at the Flood time, Noah.

I have a problem with that and I find that the church has no position on this. Many maybe’s, but nothing definite and you’re left on your own. (as with evolution). It’s too much to get into here.

1. The other question is regarding where the unjust and unfaithful went BEFORE Jesus sacrafice. I say they went straight to hell - some catechists insist that they were in the “holding pen” (call it what you will) with the righteous. This is difficult for me to accept since heaven had to be opened up by Jesus’ sacrafice but I don’t see why He had to die to open up hell.

Regarding sheol and hell, you’re right. There are different words, Gehenna would be another, and sometimes the usage is wrong, they were used interchangeably by the translator - that would be a whole different study which I don’t need for what I do and I’m not inclined to do on my own, it doesn’t seem important to me - only the whole concept is important.

If you care to comment, I’d be interested.

Fran

Hope this helps

catholicbridge.com/catholic/sheol_hell_hades.php

 

[spiderweb]

I always thought Luke 16 spoke of hell and Abraham’s Bossom.

It is most often understood that way. But in quoting Jesus, the Gospel accounts record Jesus using “hades” three times and the rest is “geenna” eleven times. Those three times for hades are Matthew 16:18, Luke 10:15, and Luke 16:23.

Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.”

Interesting that we commonly believe this to be eternal hell and of course it does refer to that. But I have a secondary view as well. We know that Jesus released those in “prison” and now holds the key to hades and death (Rev 1:18). And yet this passage from Matthew implies that hades still exists and the church will continue to fight to save as many souls as possible through the sacraments and especially through baptism.

Luke 10:15 “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hades.”

This is the only one that doesn’t seem to fit my theory, but there might be an explanation for that that I just can’t think of at the moment.

Luke 16:23 “And in hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

It would seem that if the rich man were in eternal hell, he would have used the word geenna and not hades.

It doesn’t really seem to me that they are in a different place as it begins with “in hades”. Abraham is “afar off”, and Lazarus is in “Abrahams bosom”. Where is Abraham? The conclusion in my mind is that they are all in hades.

This discussion may be too off topic from the original OP’s question, so might have to leave it that, but I’m enjoying it immensely.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is most often understood that way. But in quoting Jesus, the Gospel accounts record Jesus using “hades” three times and the rest is “geenna” eleven times. Those three times for hades are Matthew 16:18, Luke 10:15, and Luke 16:23.

Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.”

Interesting that we commonly believe this to be eternal hell and of course it does refer to that. But I have a secondary view as well. We know that Jesus released those in “prison” and now holds the key to hades and death (Rev 1:18). And yet this passage from Matthew implies that hades still exists and the church will continue to fight to save as many souls as possible through the sacraments and especially through baptism.

Luke 10:15 “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hades.”

This is the only one that doesn’t seem to fit my theory, but there might be an explanation for that that I just can’t think of at the moment.

Luke 16:23 “And in hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

It would seem that if the rich man were in eternal hell, he would have used the word geenna and not hades.

It doesn’t really seem to me that they are in a different place as it begins with “in hades”. Abraham is “afar off”, and Lazarus is in “Abrahams bosom”. Where is Abraham? The conclusion in my mind is that they are all in hades.

This discussion may be too off topic from the original OP’s question, so might have to leave it that, but I’m enjoying it immensely.

The O.P. is talking of soul sleep and hearing screaming from heaven - so I don’t think it’s too far off topic.

I’ve put together some notes:

Hebrew = sheoul )
Greek = hades ) a place for the dead

Hebrew = gehenna hell

The words were used incorrectly and even interchangeably in the OT and NT. For instance in Psalms 16:10-11 the word “hell” is used and S/B "sheoul.

I have some scripture references but they may not be necessary:
Mathew 11:23 16:18
Luke 10:15 16:23
Acts 2:27-31

Let’s just stay with Luke 16:19 The Rich Man and Lazarus

Jesus goes down to this place where we find both the just and unjust.
But Luke 16:22 says the poor man was carried away to Abraham’s Bossom.

And still in the same place:

Luke 16:23 and the rich man was buried and in Hades lifted up his eyes.

So the just and unjust were waiting in this same place, called Hades.

But the just were in an area called Abraham’s Bossom, an area of comfort.
The others were in an area of torment.

Jesus took away the ones in A.B. after the resurrection when the gates of heaven were opened - of this I’m sure.

The others remained in hades, in the place of torment, waiting till the final judgement in Revelation.

So it seems you hit the nail on the head by referring to this hades as having two different areas. One is now empty (maybe not -we wont’ get into that!) and the other is still there and the occupants are awaiting final judgement. They WERE separated by a giant chasm.

I looked up Pope Benedicts encyclical but it just confused me more - and anyway it spoke of the final judgement.

Also, your reference to CCC 633 was pivotal, it says that: “while they await the redeemer, which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the Poor Man and Lazarus, who was received into Abraham’s Bossom.”

I’m repeating what you said - I think! and have it pretty much straight in my head. Not all scripture is easy to understand, but I like to give it my best!

Did you know that there’s a place in Israel called The Gates of Hades? It’s in Caeserea Phillpi.

Also, regarding Capernaum, Luke 12:48 and Mathew 11:21-24
You’ll find that Jesus left Capernaum unhappy with that town. Mathew 4:15 speaks of this town as a prophecy of Isaiah 9:1. That land was in darkness and would see a great light, Jesus. fulfilled that prophecy. But the people did not have a lot of faith despite all the miracles they had seen and he judged that town upon leaving it.

So a big thank you is in order!

I’m sure this will have helped others too.

Fran

 

[spiderweb]

Let’s just stay with Luke 16:19 The Rich Man and Lazarus

Jesus goes down to this place where we find both the just and unjust.
But Luke 16:22 says the poor man was carried away to Abraham’s Bossom.

And still in the same place:

Luke 16:23 and the rich man was buried and in Hades lifted up his eyes.

So the just and unjust were waiting in this same place, called Hades.

But the just were in an area called Abraham’s Bossom, an area of comfort.
The others were in an area of torment.

Jesus took away the ones in A.B. after the resurrection when the gates of heaven were opened - of this I’m sure.

The others remained in hades, in the place of torment, waiting till the final judgement in Revelation.

Did you know that there’s a place in Israel called The Gates of Hades? It’s in Caeserea Phillpi.

My only disagreement with what you have written, if I’m reading it correctly, is the underlined above. I would argue that Jesus has already judged them at the same time that he judged those worthy to enter heaven. They are no longer in hades, but are in eternal hell the place of torment. Now that Jesus is in heaven and all authority to judge is given to him since the ascension, judgment is now immediate.

To my way of thinking the only souls left in hades at this point are possibly those that were unbaptized who still have the original sin of Adam, but who do not have personal sin. Which leads into another speculative topic of whether those souls will have some sort of “test” as well, or if God will be merciful and just say “come on in!” Don’t know. More interesting speculation.

Yes I did know about the Gates of Hades in Caeserea Phillipi. I think I learned about it for the first time from a DVD series from Steve Ray called “The Footprints of God”. Very interesting.

 

[frangiuliano115]

My only disagreement with what you have written, if I’m reading it correctly, is the underlined above. I would argue that Jesus has already judged them at the same time that he judged those worthy to enter heaven. They are no longer in hades, but are in eternal hell the place of torment. Now that Jesus is in heaven and all authority to judge is given to him since the ascension, judgment is now immediate.

To my way of thinking the only souls left in hades at this point are possibly those that were unbaptized who still have the original sin of Adam, but who do not have personal sin. Which leads into another speculative topic of whether those souls will have some sort of “test” as well, or if God will be merciful and just say “come on in!” Don’t know. More interesting speculation.

Yes I did know about the Gates of Hades in Caeserea Phillipi. I think I learned about it for the first time from a DVD series from Steve Ray called “The Footprints of God”. Very interesting.

Regarding possible souls left in hades - we’ll have to leave that one alone. No possible way to tell. God will do the right thing. I’m more concerned with people who don’t believe.

I spoke to our Deacon yesterday and we’re good. He thinks that the torment part of Hades is already hell and that the unjust of the O.T.went there immediately. Then he just spoke about the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Instead the just had to wait for the redemption, of course, for heaven to be accessible to them.

In your way of thinking, instead, Jesus would have had to judge the unjust too. But He was always the 2nd person of the Trinity and could have always judged - it’s just that the just couldn’t go in the presence of God. Either way could make sense and goes a bit beyond what we could know. However, it is, the people in hades are not seeing God’s face and are already experiencing “hell”.

We gave the thought a good run for its money!

Fran
P.S. Not that I trust 100% anything anybody says. A few months ago (I’m pretty active in church) a different Deacon from a different parish told me we’re all saved. That’s a shocking statement to me!

 

[ChosenOne7]

Good day to all… As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I would just like to clear up some misconceptions about us and our beliefs…

The “theological” concept (erroneous theological concept to be sure) of “soul sleep” is put forth by folks like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists, because they must attempt to reconcile Bible verses with statements their inventors or close proximity to their inventors) mention.

Ellen Gould White for example invented the Seventh Day Adventist religion and Charles Taze Russell invented the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Firstly Jehovah’s Witnesses do not share the same beliefs as the SDA, so we do not believe in “soul sleep”. According to the Bible, at death the person or “soul” ceases to exist–it dies. This is ‘soul-extinction’ not “soul sleep” because there is no “sleeper.”
In the account of Lazarus it wasn’t the soul which Jesus compared to sleep, but it was death.

Secondly C.T Russell did not invent the Jehovah’s Witness religion. C.T Russell started the “Bible Student Movement” anyone part of his movement was a Bible student… Bible Students still exist today and have kept to Russell’s teachings. He died in 1916 Jehovahs witnesses only came into existence in 1931, Russell and the early Bible Students did not have as complete a knowledge as we have today, therefore you would find a difference in some of our beliefs.

The doctrine of “soul sleep” is a fairly recent invention, developed in its current form by Jehovah’s Witness founder Charles Taze Russell, at the time a Seventh-Day Adventist,

It’s always disappointing to see such educated men such as ‘Brian Tice’ stating false claims of which you quoted, and sometimes sad how people could just believe it… Like I said Russell was not the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and also Russell was never associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist organization, nor is there any evidence that Russell obtained his teachings from the writings of any author associated with that organization. The confusion appears to be that many fail distinguish Adventists in general from the Seventh-Day Adventist organization. They are not the same group.

Russell, by his own admission under court oath, was not at all schooled in the original languages (specified in his testimony as Hebrew and Greek), yet before his congregants, he attempted to make use of Hebrew and Greek dictionaries (in a clumsy, unscholarly manner) in order to feign a deeper knowledge of the Scriptures than he actually possessed. His early influences were Calvinist (Presbyterian and Congregationalist), nuanced later by the teachings of William Miller and others in that Adventist sect.[/INDENT]

William Miller was a Baptist preacher the founder of the Millerites, he was not an Adventist it was George Storrs who was an adventist.
What you do not realise is that the majority of Christians today are not schooled in the original language aswel the difference with Russell is that he didn’t just believe and he studied things to see if it’s true. I like what Russell said and I’ll quote it:
*As respects my education in Greek and Hebrew: Not only do I not claim very special knowledge of either language, but I claim that not one minister in a thousand is either a Hebrew or a Greek scholar. To be able to spell out a few Greek words is of no earthly value. Nor is it necessary longer to study these languages, in order to have knowledge of the Bible. Our Presbyterian friends have gotten out at great cost Young’s Analytical Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon Concordance, which anyone may procure. And our Methodist friends have issued a similar work-- Strong’s Analytical Concordance and Lexicon. And there is a still older one entitled Englishman’s Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon and Concordance. Additionally, Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon is a standard authority. The prices of these are not beyond the reach of the average man. By these works scholarly information respecting the original text of the Bible is obtainable. I have all four of these works and have used them faithfully. Very few college professors, even, would risk to give a critical translation of any text of Scripture without consulting these very works of reference, which are standard. To merely learn to read the Greek and Hebrew without a six years’ course in their grammars is more likely to hinder than to help in Bible study; far better take the acknowledged scholarship to which I have referred. Additionally I remind you of the many translations of the Bible now extant–all of them very good. I have all of these and find them useful in comparison in the study of any text–one sometimes giving a thought which another may not. The other day, for curiosity’s sake, I counted Bibles in different translations, etc., in my study and found that I have thirty-two.

• 1914 Watchtower, September 15, page 286*

 

[ChosenOne7]

The Biblical definition of the word “soul” is always used in reference to a living being, human or animal. The original language words for “soul” denote a “breathing creature” or “living being” and also can be used in the extended or metaphorical senses of “life.”

Therefore, when the Bible states that the soul dies, it is never speaking of a “separation” of body and soul. Death is the ceasing to exist of the whole person.
With the number of verses which explicitly state that the soul dies the doctrine of an immortal soul is impossible to defend Scripturally - all that can be done is to use ambiguous, parabolic and symbolic scriptures.

It’s interesting what the Catholic encyclopedia says:
“There is NO DICHOTOMY [two parts] of body and soul in the OT…The term nepes, though translated by our word soul, NEVER MEANS SOUL AS DISTINCT FROM THE BODY…The soul in the OT means NOT A PART of man, but the whole man-man as a living being.”–The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967

We do not believe in “soul sleep” same as we do not believe in an “immortal soul”

 

[frangiuliano115]

The Biblical definition of the word “soul” is always used in reference to a living being, human or animal. The original language words for “soul” denote a “breathing creature” or “living being” and also can be used in the extended or metaphorical senses of “life.”

Therefore, when the Bible states that the soul dies, it is never speaking of a “separation” of body and soul. Death is the ceasing to exist of the whole person.
With the number of verses which explicitly state that the soul dies the doctrine of an immortal soul is impossible to defend Scripturally - all that can be done is to use ambiguous, parabolic and symbolic scriptures.

It’s interesting what the Catholic encyclopedia says:
“There is NO DICHOTOMY [two parts] of body and soul in the OT…The term nepes, though translated by our word soul, NEVER MEANS SOUL AS DISTINCT FROM THE BODY…The soul in the OT means NOT A PART of man, but the whole man-man as a living being.”–The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967

We do not believe in “soul sleep” same as we do not believe in an “immortal soul”

Hello Chosen One,

I love this forum but don’t have a lot of time so I tend to read quickly and sometimes I miss little things, so I apologize beforehand if I misunderstood.

If Russell didn’t “invent” the JW then who did? I don’t think you mention it.

I’d also like to say that JW also misstate both christian, in general, and catholic theology.

Could I bring up two points?

Re the dichotomy in the old testament. In the pressent day both christian mainline churches and catholics believe in a trichotomy of the human person. Body, soul and spirit. What happens after death was not even fully developed in the OT so it’s difficult for me to understand how JW cling so to the OT. Of course, it’s because they don’t understand Jesus being the SON OF GOD, not the son of God and also there’s a problem with the trinity, of course.

So you don’t really accept the NT as christians do.

You do bring up Lazarus. Exactly which verse are you referring to? I’m not going to get into a verse by verse debate because it’s useless, but that verse has never been brought up so I’d be interested.

Fran

 

[GEddie]

****You do bring up Lazarus. Exactly which verse are you referring to? I’m not going to get into a verse by verse debate because it’s useless, but that verse has never been brought up so I’d be interested.

While I’m not her, the vss. in question is John 11:11, where our LORD tells His friends, “Lazarus sleepeth.” [Meaning dead]

Although it is correct that it is death, and not the soul, that is Scriptually “compared to sleep,” there is a wee-bit of straw on this fellow’s clothes, in that neither Catholics nor mainline Protestants ever compare the soul to sleep!

In fact, soul-sleep is a misnomer. No Christian faith-body, IMS, claims to hold to “soul sleep” as a doctrine. In fact, because human sleeping is a body function, only bodies can sleep.

So rather than asking about soul-sleep per se, maybe one should ask instead, if the human soul living after death is Biblical, or does it instead go into an abeyance?

ICXC NIKA

 

[ChosenOne7]

If Russell didn’t “invent” the JW then who did? I don’t think you mention it.

Russell never had intentions of starting a new religion and he was not the founder of a new religion. The goal of Russell and the other Bible Students, was to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ and to follow the practices of the first-century Christian congregation. Since Jesus is the Founder of Christianity, we view him as the founder of our organization.

I’d also like to say that JW also misstate both christian, in general, and catholic theology.

I’m sorry I do not understand… Would you maybe be more specific as to what you referring to?

Re the dichotomy in the old testament. In the pressent day both christian mainline churches and catholics believe in a trichotomy of the human person. Body, soul and spirit. What happens after death was not even fully developed in the OT so it’s difficult for me to understand how JW cling so to the OT. Of course, it’s because they don’t understand Jesus being the SON OF GOD, not the son of God and also there’s a problem with the trinity, of course.

How do you know what they did and did not understand in the OT?
We must not forget that the Bible was inspired by God what they wrote in the Bible is what he wanted them to write. That is why even though the scriptures was written over different periods of times by different men you still never will find a scripture that contradicts another scripture. You saying they did not understand death is because what they believe is contrary to what you believe.

So you don’t really accept the NT as christians do.

I don’t understand… How do you accept the NT? Do you say that the NT is more relevant than the OT?

We accept all scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16 says - “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness…”
It’s not only the NT that’s beneficial for teaching and setting things straight it’s ‘ALL SCRIPTURE’

You do bring up Lazarus. Exactly which verse are you referring to? I’m not going to get into a verse by verse debate because it’s useless, but that verse has never been brought up so I’d be interested.

Yes John 11:11 - After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead.

The verses in 23 and 24 shows us that even Mary who was a jew believed in the resurrection the same thing people in the OT believed in…
23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
Mary didn’t believe that Lazarus went to heaven or that his soul was still alive or in soul sleep, they knew exactly what death meant… That’s why she said that she knows he will rise again at the last day… But Jesus resurrected him before that time.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Russell never had intentions of starting a new religion and he was not the founder of a new religion. The goal of Russell and the other Bible Students, was to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ and to follow the practices of the first-century Christian congregation. Since Jesus is the Founder of Christianity, we view him as the founder of our organization.

Interesting. Jesus is the founder of christianity and you want to follow the practices of first century christian congregations. And here is the crux of the problem as I see it.

JW will not accept that Jesus IS GOD. I always like to refer to any bible on any bookshelf referencing John 1:1. The JW bible is the only one that adds that tiny little word “a” God.
Tiny word - big difference.

Know why? I wouldn’t follow a guy like Jesus unless He WAS the Son of God, as christians mean it - not as JW mean it - because, IMHO Jesus was either God or He was a crazy man. Why make a crazy man the founder of a religion and why would anyone want to follow him??

I’m sorry I do not understand… Would you maybe be more specific as to what you referring to?

Most JW were atheists before or catholics. Do you really think you know every catholic doctrine? Most learned catholics don’t know all of catholic doctrine. I was just saying that we can’t know everything about each others religion; I know very little about what you believe.

How do you know what they did and did not understand in the OT?
We must not forget that the Bible was inspired by God what they wrote in the Bible is what he wanted them to write. That is why even though the scriptures was written over different periods of times by different men you still never will find a scripture that contradicts another scripture. You saying they did not understand death is because what they believe is contrary to what you believe.

How do YOU know what they did and did not understand in the OT?
And yet that’s what you base your beliefs on.
I’m glad you don’t think scriptures can contradict each other - so we’ll never disagree!
If I send you to 2 Cor 5:8 are you going to send me to 1 Thes 4:15-17??
I agree with you. I don’t believe the bible contradicts itself but I do think different religions have their own way of interpreting scripture. I’m sure you know John Calvin. A bit extreme wasn’t he?

I’m not saying they didn’t understand death because they don’t agree with me. When the word “sleep” is used in the OT it just means that the person was dead. They just looked like they were sleeping.

Don’t you think also that God revealed Himself slowly, as the people of the time could understand? And that Jesus was the ultimate revelation? It seems to me that the NT is much clearer than the OT. You know how people think the God of the OT is different and meaner than the God of the NT? Well, you have to admit it’s much easier to understand God after Jesus came down to earth.

Also, how would you explain the difference in belief between the pharisees and the saddurcees? The S didn’t believe in an after-life. The P believed in an afterlife and the immortality of the soul. Acts 23:6–
How do you explain Luke 16:19–
What did Jesus mean when He said to the thief on the cross: Today you will be with me in paradise? And watch that comma - Jesus knew he was speaking TODAY.

I don’t understand… How do you accept the NT? Do you say that the NT is more relevant than the OT?

All of scripture is relevant. 2 Timothy works for me too. But did you ever study the covenants? Don’t you think the New Covenant is far superior to any of the “old” ones?
I like to concentrate more on the NT. God tried so many ways to make us understand Him. Judges, prophets, kings (although He didn’t think they were such a good idea), finally He decided to sent His only Son. I tend to go with that!

We accept all scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16 says - “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness…”
It’s not only the NT that’s beneficial for teaching and setting things straight it’s ‘ALL SCRIPTURE’

Yeah. Couldn’t agree with you more.

Yes John 11:11 - After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead.

The verses in 23 and 24 shows us that even Mary who was a jew believed in the resurrection the same thing people in the OT believed in…
23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
Mary didn’t believe that Lazarus went to heaven or that his soul was still alive or in soul sleep, they knew exactly what death meant… That’s why she said that she knows he will rise again at the last day… But Jesus resurrected him before that time.

John 11:11 is important. You’re right in all that you say above. Mary and Martha believed in the resurrection But catch what Jesus says:
John 11:25-26
“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”

He’s saying that even if a person dies, he’ll still be alive. (the soul).

And what about John 11:26-27 Martha answers Jesus that, yes, she does believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God. She sees Him differently now. Now she believes He is the Son of God.

I’m not a confrontational person ChsoenOne7. Hope this came through. The reason I took so much time to answer you is that I always wish JW would turn again to christianity. I have a friend who left the JW, though it wasn’t easy for her due to how she was treated. She tells me she feels freer now.

Fran

 

[iohannes13]

Hi chosen,

Do you believe that all bibles except the JW version are corrupted by the devil?