A Bible truth....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh really then what is it about the dead are conscious of nothing that yet evades you? or that needs your interpretation to give it the seal of approval. Interpret it how you like, the fact remains, dead are unconscious as is substantiated by scripture.

How about you respond to the points I raised?

Originally posted by Conrau K
How about you respond to the points I raised?

These are your thoughts, not mine, therefore its not i that need explain them, but you, i have made my stance quite clear, you need not accept it nor give it credence. To state that it is shallow is unkind and without foundation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
These are your thoughts, not mine, therefore its not i that need explain them, but you, i have made my stance quite clear, you need not accept it nor give it credence.

Ok, I will teach you how to debate. You have interpreted Ecclesiastes 9:5 as evidence that the dead lack consciousness. I replied with three objections:

1. Ecclesiastes should not be interpreted it as a dogmatic treaties. It contains a lot of hyperbole (for example, chapter 12) and reads more as a lament about the injustice of the world.

2. Doctrine develops. So even if Ecclesiastes does suggest some doctrine about the afterlife, this is superseded in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ proclaims salvation to mankind, offering them the possibility of eternal life against the dangers of eternal suffering (as depicted in the parable of Lazarus and the dead man -- of which you have not actually offered any non-literal interpretation.)

3. There is some evidence of continuity after death. The author says that the breath of life (which plausibly can be interpreted as the soul) returns to God and that God will reward or punish (12: 14). This was presuppose some level of sensation and consciousness.

I also have a fourth linguistic objection:

4. Neither the Greek nor the Latin translation talk about 'consciousness'. The Greek uses the says 'ouk gignoskontes kai' and the Latin says 'nec noverunt amplius' -- 'not knowing more'. Neither translation talks about a lack of consciousness but about a lack of further knowledge. In traditional Christianity, this is interpreted to mean that the dead lack further knowledge of the temporal world, not a termination of consciousness.

Now the protocol of debate dictates that you respond to these objections individually. You either show that they are factually incorrect, based on unsound reasoning or implausible. That is how you should proceed in your next post. You do not just restate your position without answering the objections of others. That is both discourteous and intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
parable and utterly figurative.

"There was a certain rich man.."

It is not figurative. It is quite literal. If this had been just a parable then Jesus would not have been so emphatic.

Originally posted by galveston75
What exactly do these scripture not prove?

They do not prove your assertion, which is that a person is not conscience of their existence after they die.

Think about what the verses are actually saying the next time you read them.

That way you will avoid the error of projecting preconceptions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok, I will teach you how to debate. You have interpreted Ecclesiastes 9:5 as evidence that the dead lack consciousness. I replied with three objections:

1. Ecclesiastes should not be interpreted it as a dogmatic treaties. It contains a lot of hyperbole (for example, chapter 12) and reads more as a lament about the injustice of the world.

2. Doctrine ...[text shortened]... wering the objections of others. That is both discourteous and intellectually dishonest.

sorry not interested, learnt my lesson last night, believe what you want, i see no reason to accept anything else from what is stated in scripture, nor as my good friend Noobster pointed out, will you people change your views, conclusion, debating with you people is a complete waste of time.

Originally posted by josephw
"There was a [b]certain rich man.."

It is not figurative. It is quite literal. If this had been just a parable then Jesus would not have been so emphatic.[/b]

get a grip,one drop of water on the tip of a mans finger quenches his thirst in burning torment, i dont think so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
parable and utterly figurative.

How about Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus in Matthew 17:3 ---

"Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus."

Moses and Elijah had been dead for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet here they are, speaking with Jesus. This is biblical proof that the dead are conscious.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
How about Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus in Matthew 17:3 ---

"Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus."

Moses and Elijah had been dead for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet here they are, speaking with Jesus. This is biblical proof that the dead are conscious.

does the term, transfiguration mean anything to you Epi? Christ himself terms it a vision.

(Matthew 17:9) And as they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”

Originally posted by josephw
Not a single one of the verses you cited proves your assertion. In fact you are so far off the field you don't even realise that Ps 146:4. doesn't exist.

4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Psalm 146:4 It's there 🙂


Manny

I agree instead of attacking G75 & RC let's really look at the scriptures.
How about each one individually?

When a person dies they exist with no thought or conscienceness:
Gen 3:19. Eccl 9:5,6,10. Ps 146:4. 1Thes 4:13. Acts 7:60. 1 Corinthians 15:6.
1 Kings 19:4

How about Gen 3:19 first



Manny

Genesis 3:19 (New American Standard Bible)


19By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."

This scripture here just shows what we already know that we are flesh which rots in the ground and becomes worm food. This scripture by it's self however does not prove either way conciseness after death. As far coming from the ground we are dirt clods with eyeballs LOL 🙂

Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
does the term, transfiguration mean anything to you Epi? Christ himself terms it a vision.

(Matthew 17:9) And as they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”

does the term, transfiguration mean anything to you Epi? Christ himself terms it a vision.

Transfiguration means that Christ's appearance was changed. So? It was still Jesus. And the two men speaking with him, Moses and Elijah, were just as real. Unless you seriously think Jesus would have spoken to a couple of hallucinatory individuals that he knew weren't real. "Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:30-31).

Have you forgotten that Jehovah is the God of the living? By insisting that Abraham and Elijah are dead you contradict the very words of Jesus, who said, "Have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matt 22:31-32).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry not interested, learnt my lesson last night, believe what you want, i see no reason to accept anything else from what is stated in scripture, nor as my good friend Noobster pointed out, will you people change your views, conclusion, debating with you people is a complete waste of time.

nor as my good friend Noobster pointed out, will you people change your views, conclusion, debating with you people is a complete waste of time.

I actually am very open to changing my mind. I can point to many examples in which I have been corrected, proved wrong or when an argument has persuaded me. You, however, refuse to admit any error even when faced with overwhelming evidence. I have put forward four arguments why I think you have misinterpreted Ecc 9:5 wrongly. They are very compelling arguments and your response is basically an obstinate refusal to engage in reason. So do not pretend to be the victim here.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]does the term, transfiguration mean anything to you Epi? Christ himself terms it a vision.

Transfiguration means that Christ's appearance was changed. So? It was still Jesus. And the two men speaking with him, Moses and Elijah, were just as real. Unless you seriously think Jesus would have spoken to a couple of hallucinatory individuals th ...[text shortened]... God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matt 22:31-32).[/b]

as usual you have completely ignored the scriptural verification of my words, Christ states that it was a vision, do you understand?

That Jehovah is the God of the living has absolutely nothing to do with it, for it is quite evidently clear that they are living, in the sense that at a future time they shall be resurrected, now you shall explain, what is the point of having a resurrection at some future point if people do not die? If you please.