do you have an immortal soul?

8/14/2019 Do You Have an Immortal Soul?

1/13

1

Do YouHave an

Immortal Soul?Are unsaved sinners tortured in hell forever?Do you go to heaven or hell right at death?

Are the dead unconscious until theresurrection? What does the Bible teach

about the state of the dead?


2/13


3/13

3

personality and character of the person who died,but it cant think when not connected to thebody. Notice, by the way, how we have a "spirit,"a "soul," and a "body." An advocate of theimmortal/eternal soul doctrine really should

choose between "spirit" and "soul," and notinadvertently assert humans have two immortalparts!

The Dead Arent Conscious, but Sleep inthe Grave

Since people only have eternallife conditionally upon having faith in andobeying God, the unsaved wont have

consciousness until their resurrection either.Jesus said Lazarus was asleep before resurrectinghim (John 11:11-13; cf. Job 14:12). Paul said thatif the resurrection didn't happen, the saved deadwere lost, which means they couldn't have beenconscious souls living in heaven then: "For if thedead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are stillin your sins! Then also those who have fallenasleep in Christ have perished" (I Cor. 15:16-18).Job said that fathers who die don't know whethertheir sons are honored or become insignificant(Job 14:20). So dead parents supposedly savedand living in heaven wouldn't know what theiroffspring on earth are doing. David said in Ps.6:5: "For there is no mention of Thee in death; inSheol who will give Thee thanks?" (See alsoIsaiah 38:18-19 for similar thoughts). So couldthe saved dead (in heaven or elsewhere)even possibly not be praising God? It would beabsurd! The rhetorical question in Ps. 88:10s

second line implies the departed spirits arentpraising God. Psalm 115:17 says flatly: Thedead do not praise the Lord. In Psalm 146:4, itsays we shouldn't trust in mortal man because,"His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In thatvery day his thoughts perish." Although the wordtranslated "thoughts" here can be translatedmore narrowly as "plans," the Christian writer

Uriah Smith has said that the Hebrew word hererefers to "the act of the mind in the process of thinking and reasoning." If so, the dead can't beconscious according to this texteither. Therefore, if the saved dead, of whom

Paul spoke here, aren't resurrected, then they areunsaved and aren't restored to consciousness.

The Doctrines of the Immortality of theSoul and the Resurrection ArentCompatible

The doctrines of the immortality of thesoul and of the resurrection simply aren'tcompatible (especially as taught in I Cor. 15).

After all, if the immortal soul is perfectly happy tolive in heaven, why reunite it with the materialbody? And if the wicked entered hell right afterthey died and are presently suffering eternalpunishing, why pull them out of hell and reunitethem with their physical bodies? Would they bethrown right back into hell again after being

judged again? Could God have made a mistakethe first time around after they died? Does Hereview His previous decision for error after themillennium ends? What balderdash! Whyreencumber spirit bodies (see I Cor. 15:42-45)with gross material flesh again after they havepossibly lived in heaven or hell for thousands of years? According to Rev. 20:13, "death andHades gave up the dead which were in them; andthey were judged, every one of them accordingto their deeds." The Great White ThroneJudgment of Rev. 20:11-15 implies those whodied before Jesus return and came up in thesecond resurrection are all judged at the same

time, not piecemeal down through thegenerations as they died. Paul wrote that if theresurrection didn't happen, the saved dead werelost, which means they couldn't have beenconscious souls living in heaven then: "For if thedead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still


4/13

4

in your sins! Then also those who have fallenasleep in Christ have perished" (I Cor. 15:16-18).If someone is "perished" without a personalresurrection, then he or she isn't alive consciouslywhile dead before it occurs. Paul uses "sleep"

here to refer to the state of the dead (as in verse20 also). So if the saved dead, of whom he'sspeaking here, aren't resurrected, then they areactually unsaved and aren't restored toconsciousness. The resurrection wouldn't beregarded as such a crucial doctrine if we were stillconscious after death.

If indeed the dead are fully conscious, theBibles analogy between death and sleep makes

no sense. To say only the "body" sleeps, not thewhole person, in order to explain this away runsagain into the problem of the resurrection: If westay conscious continuously after deathautomatically when we would go to heaven orhell at death, why have a resurrection at all?Also, if this "spirit/soul" is the real part of theperson, and the body superfluous matter tostaying conscious, isnt it rather deceiving to callthe state of the dead "sleep"? It's hardly "sleep"to suffer conscious misery in hell as the flamessupposedly torture the wicked terribly. Thedoctrines of the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection are simply incompatible,although many will illogically labor mightily tosquare this circle.

The Righteous Dead Arent in HeavenNow

When the dead enter the great collective

grave of mankind, "sheol" in Hebrew, and"hades" in Greek, they aren't conscious of anything. They aren't in heaven, hell, limbo, orpurgatory. When Jesus said this (John 3:13), noman had gone to heaven (i.e., where God'sthrone is, the third heaven): "No one hasascended to heaven but He who came downfrom heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in

heaven." Even after Christ's resurrection, KingDavid, the man after God's own heart, hadn'tascended to heaven according to Peter (Acts2:29, 34): "Men and brethren, let me speak freelyto you of the patriarch David, that he is both

dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to thisday. . . . For David did not ascend into theheavens." In the same passage, Peter cited Davidin the Old Testament to prove the MessiahHimself wouldnt ascend to heaven before Hisresurrection, but His soul would stay briefly in thegrave while He was dead (v. 27): For You will notleave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow YourHoly One to see corruption. So when the deadenter the great collective grave of mankind, sheol

in Hebrew, hades in Greek, they aren't consciousof anything. They aren't in heaven, hell, orpurgatory. So when will Christians experiencewhats described in I John 3:2?: "Beloved, we areGod's children now; it does not yet appear whatwe shall be, but we know that when he[Jesus] appears we shall be like him, for we shallsee him as he is." Notice that this text refers toJesus' second coming, not to the present. Wewouldn't see Jesus right after we die nor,surprisingly enough, do saved Christians go rightto heaven!

After all, what do the meek inherit? (Matt.5:5) They inherit the earth, not heaven! Similarly,doesnt God the Father come down to a newearth in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1-3)? So IJohn 3:2 discusses what happens when Christianswill be resurrected (I Cor. 15:51-54) and rise tomeet Jesus in the clouds/sky of the earth (I Thess.4:16-17). Thats not an exotic, faraway, spiritual

location: Thats where airplanes fly everyday!Instead of remaining a immortal/eternalsoul/spirit, our bodies will be transformed by aresurrection (or translation, if we're alivewhen Jesus comes) that will give us eternal life (ICor. 15:48-54). Theres no other way we can besaved, meaning, be preserved to live for alleternity. After all, Jesus comes to the earth


5/13


6/13

6

desires all men to be saved, and to come to theknowledge of the truth (I Timothy 2:4). Sodoesnt God want to save everyone? Will Godcondemn to an eternity of torture in hell firethose who never heard Jesus' name or who never

heard the Gospel preached? Would God hurlbillions of ignorant Chinese and East Indianpeasants to burn in hell for endless trillions of years for a mere mayfly lifetime of sins withoutan opportunity to escape their dire fates? WouldGod so fail so colossally to grant them a practicalway to gain repentance (Acts 11:18) so theypossibly could be saved? Is it fair for God tocondemn those who never had a chance to beginwith? Can the traditional view justify God's

justice to humanity (i.e., construct a convincingtheodicy)? Is a brief life of (say) 20, 40, or 70years of moderate sin fairly punished by trillionsand trillions of years of burning torture? Andthat's merely for starters, the barest preface to anever-ending story of agony. Will God maintainand supervise this a plague spot in His universefor all eternity with evil angels and men sufferingfor their sins? Or will God totally clean out Hisuniverse (see Acts 3:21) in order to restore theconditions that existed before Lucifer (a/k/aSatan) rebelled and Adam and Eve ate of the fruitof the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?Wouldnt God ultimately want EVERY livingcreature still remaining in the created universe(cf. Rev. 5:13) to bless Him and to worship Him?

As indicated by Matt. 12:41-42 (compare11:21-24), most people aren't judged yet duringthis lifetime. The pagan inhabitants of Nineveharen't yet burning eternally in hell. If the

immortal soul doctrine is true, then the judgmenthas to occur at death. Otherwise, the dead arebeing held in an unconsciousness state instead.How else could presumably unsaved people

during their lifetimes, such as the men of Ninevehwho heard Jonah and the Queen of Sheba whovisited Solomon, condemn Jews who rejectedJesus as their Messiah when He visited their

villages and towns? It would be most curious forGod to resurrect these people who (most likely)never had the Holy Spirit, which is a requirementfor salvation (Romans 8:9-11; II Cor. 5:5), and letthem condemn others before tossing them all

into hell.

Notice that Israel still has a chance atsalvation despite having rejected their Messiah todate, according to Paul: "And thus all Israel willbe saved" (Rom. 11:26; cf. verses 7, 26). If thisgeneralization wasn't true, how could Paul writeit? Could (say) 90% of Israel be lost to helldespite he believed they all would be saved?Although we know some won't be saved, such as

Judas Iscariot, it has to be that almost all of themwill be, despite they often worshipped false godsusing idols during their physical lifetimes.

We shouldnt mistakenly assume thatwhen the dead are judged that has to mean"sentencing" rather than probation. Nor shouldwe equate "sentencing" with "judgment."Someone who is judged or being judged need

not at that moment be condemned andsentenced to a particular punishment. A personcan have a period of judg ing before a finaloutcome is determined. For example, Peter says"it is time for judgment to begin with thehousehold of God; and if it begins with us first,what will be the outcome for those who do notobey the gospel of God?" (I Pet. 4:17). SinceChristians during this lifetime arent yetsentenced, "judgment" here simply can't meanonly "sentencing." So we should be wary of assuming this automatically for other texts, such

as Hebrews 9:27, but see what the contextindicates or what other parts of the Bible teach

Will the Wicked Be Eternally Tortured?

Are the wicked to be eternally tortured?Do the unrepentant disobedient have eternal lifealso? After all, if each person has an undying,


7/13


8/13

8

interpretation, to keep shifting back and forthbetween the two words? Can someone claimlegitimately that the two English words, or theHebrew and Greek words from which they aretranslated, have the same meaning?

Do Philippians 1:23 and II Corinthians 5:8Prove the Dead Are Alive?

Do Phil. 1:23 and II Cor. 5:8 proveChristians go to heaven when they die? Neithertext says anything about eternal torment or theimmortality of the soul. Both such thoughts haveto be read into the texts here. After all,theoretically someone could believe people go to

heaven or hell at death, but still affirm that thesouls thrown into hell would eventually becompletely destroyed, not eternally tortured.

For both texts, the orthodox positionsdefender assumes that no resurrection happensbetween the beginning of death and entering theLords presence. Yet I Cor. 15:16-18 presupposesthat the only way to gain eternal life is from aresurrection. As a matter of hermeneutics, all thetexts on a subject should be examined todetermine correct doctrines. Its a shoddyinterpretive procedure to just pick out a few textsto prop up a favored position chosen beforehanda priori, long before the evidence was examinedwithout bias. Neither Phil. 1:23 nor II Cor. 5:8 sayPaul or Christians in general would immediately enter the presence of Jesus after their deaths.Rev. 20:5, 11-15 shows that most unsaved

people (i.e., excepting those called during theirfirst lifetimes who later refused to practice Gods

truth) aren't judged until after the millenniumends. They aren't judged at their deaths,dumped into hell now when they die, and laterpulled out, judged again, and then thrown backin.

Neither text is clear enough to reallyaccomplish the goal for which they are typically

used. For example, neither says we have animmortal soul that's conscious separately fromthe body. Such thoughts have to be read intothe texts in question. It's far easier to concludethat (in the case of Phil. 1:23) that when Paul

died, he would have no consciousness of passingtime in the grave. So the moment he died wouldbe seemingly instantly followed by the momentof his being resurrected and meeting Jesus in thesky at the Second Coming. If the saved andunsaved have no consciousness or sense of timepassing until they come to life again, centuriescan pass yet they would be experienced as if theywere a single nights sleep. The ancient Greekphilosopher Socrates (428-348 b.c.), despite

being a pagan having no knowledge of theHebrew Bible or of the resurrection, still knew thistruth nevertheless: Now if there is noconsciousness but only a dreamless sleep, deathmust be a marvelous gain. . . . If death is like this,then I call it gain, because the whole of time, if you look at it in this way, can be regarded as nomore than one single night (Apology, 40d-e). If an advocate of conditional immortality assertedthat what they describe would happen at theSecond Coming (as per I Cor. 15:23 and I Thess.4:15-17), neither text contradicts him. After all,Paul faithfully anticipated receiving a crown of righteousness on the day of Jesus return (II Tim.4:6-7), not right after he died. It's necessary tofigure out what Paul means based what he wroteelsewhere or to use other passages of Scriptureto figure out what these texts mean rather thanideas we may have presupposed on our ownfrom what we've been traditionally taught. TheBible should be used to interpret the Bible, which

is an especially important point when interpretingprophecy, but that's another subject.

Do the Parable of the Richman andLazarus Prove the Dead Are Conscious?

Does the parable of the Richman andLazarus (Luke 16:19-31) prove we have immortal


9/13

9

souls? Fundamentally its a poor idea to basedoctrine on something clearly allegorical. Christsanalogies that explain spiritual truths shouldntbe used as proof for doctrines beyond theirobvious intended spiritual or moral lessons. This

parable mainly taught about the duty of the well-off to care for the poor and that those who fullyknow Gods truth should act on it in this life, forafter they die its too late. Unlike Jesus debatewith Sadducees, this passage wasnt primarilyintended to teach about what life after deathwould actually be like. Even in this parable, therich man wanted Lazarus after he was raised fromthe dead to go back to warn his brothers (cf. Luke16:30-31). The rich man says nothing about

wanting Lazaruss immortal soul to go on a visit.The rich man (or Dives) is also contemplatingbeing thrown into Gehenna or the lake of fire.(Three Greek words are translated hell in theKing James Version: Gehenna refers to a fieryplace of punishment for the wicked, but hades,the common grave of mankind, never doesexcept perhaps in verse 23 of this parable). He'scant be there already: Why does he request onlya tiny amount of water (v. 24), not a Niagara'sworth? Notice also this passage says nothingabout eternal torment: How long the rich manssuffering will last remains unstated. But now,according to the Bible elsewhere, when are thedead raised anyway? They aren't raised rightafter they die, since that doesn't happen untilJesus returns (at the earliest). The rich manhimself wouldn't be resurrected until at least theend of the millennium, or (much more likely)about 100 years afterwards (Isaiah 65:17, 20),since he wasn't saved before dying. So when the

rich man wanted Lazarus to go back, this wasimpossible. It would require a time machine.His brothers would have died centuries earlier, sopresumably (if equally unsaved) they would beresurrected right when he was. Their course of action in their past lives couldn't now be changedby the actions of resurrected Lazarus or the richman himself. This raises the whole issue of the

incompatibility of the resurrection and theimmortal/eternal soul doctrine, since the latterfocuses on immediate consequences for one'ssins after death, but the former delays it until thegeneral Judgment following the resurrection.

Does I Peter 3:18-20 Show that Jesus WasAlive After His Crucifixion but Before HisResurrection?

Does I Peter 3:18-20 prove Jesus was alivewhen he was dead? If Jesus had to make a fullsacrifice for our sins, then it was necessary thatHe totally die for us. His state of death shouldn'thave differed from what ours will be if His

sacrifice was to redeem us from the same fate.

Lets read the full text (I Peter 3:18-20):"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just

for the unjust, in order that He might bring us toGod, having been put to death in the flesh, butmade alive in the spirit; in which also He wentand made proclamation to the spirits now inprison, who once were disobedient, when thepatience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah,during the construction of the ark, in which a few,that is, eight persons, were brought safelythrough the water." Notice that the word "now"in v. 19 (NASB) is in italics, so it wasn't in theoriginal text.

When Jesus did this was in the days of Noah by the Holy Spirit, not during the threedays and three nights He was dead. The term"spirits in prison" can refer to ordinary peopleheld in the bondage of sin (see Luke 4:18-20). It

need not refer to the fallen angels or peoplesdeparted immortal/eternal souls/spirits. WhenJesus was "made alive," He had to have beendead completely. It doesn't say, He "continuedto live," etc. When He did this preaching, He didit by the Spirit, which meant the job had beendelegated. Remember now the old languageconvention by which what a king, president, or


10/13

10

leader does includes what his subordinates do athis request or command. Hence, when TheodoreRoosevelt built the Panama Canal, he obviouslyused many laborers and engineers to actuallyconstruct it. But it's still credited to him. King

Solomon likewise was said to have built thetemple of Jehovah (I Kings 8:2, 14), but Bible itself also says that thousands of laborers worked toconstruct it (I Kings 7:13-18). Similarly, itspossible that what the Spirit did in preaching wasattributed to Jesus, who guides and controls theSpirit. Indeed, the Spirit is sometimes equatedwith Jesus: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and wherethe Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (II Cor.3:17). In Acts 2:31 Jesus was in hades ("hell,"

KJV), the common grave of mankind, whichshouldn't be equated to this "prison."

Does Jesus' statement about Judas provethe wicked would be tortured forever inhell?

According to Mark 14:21, Jesus said:"Woe to that man by whom the Son of man isbetrayed! It would have been better for that manif he had not been born." Does this text sayanything about the soul or spirit beingindestructible or immortal or undying or eternal?Obviously not. Such concepts have to be readinto this text. To prove those beliefs, other textswould have to be cited. It simply can't bear thiskind of weight without far more direct evidencethat says the soul/spirit isimmortal/eternal/indestructible/undying. Letsreply to this question another way: Would Paul(Romans 9:3) or Moses (Ex. 32:32) want to be

roasted in hell's fires for unending trillions of years to save others? Thats hard to accept!

Then how would Judas' fate of totaldestruction such that his consciousness ceases tofunction be worse than his never being born?Well, Judas will end up in the lake of fire that'sdescribed in Rev. 20. Even some intense pain in

fire for a given definite period before beingdestroyed into ashes (Malachi 4:1, 3) is worsethan never existing, that is, never feeling pain.But there are other ways Judas would have beenbetter off by never existing. For example,

would we want to have such an awful reputationthat billions of people would always remember usfor betraying the Savior to His executioners?Some will be resurrected to shame andeverlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Judas wouldhave an incredible black hole of a reputation forall eternity. Would we want to be one of unrepentant wicked subjected to thatpunishment, despite that after we've suffered thesecond death, we would know nothing about

what others will think of us throughout eternity?

Furthermore, to have an unpleasant lifeon earth alone can make it better for someonenot to be even born, according to Solomon (Eccl.6:3-5): "If a man begets a hundred children, andlives many years, so that the days of his years aremany, but he does not enjoy life's good things,and also has no burial, I say that an untimelybirth [i.e., a miscarriage--EVS] is better off thanhe. For it comes into vanity and goes intodarkness, and in darkness its name is covered;moreover it has not seen the sun or knownanything; yet it finds rest rather than he." Howshould someone look at Judas Iscariot's lifeending as a suicide after he betrayed his Master?Could this also be true of him? Did Judas receivea decent burial after he killed himself? So if anunpleasant life on earth could make it better tonot be born, theres no intrinsic need to bringinto the balances matters about an

unpleasant afterlife to judge whether it would bebetter for someone not to have been born tobegin with.

Can the Living Be Baptized to Save theDead?


11/13

11

The LDS/Mormon Church mistakenly usesI Cor. 15:29 to support its teachings on baptizingpeople who are now dead. In their templeszealous Mormons will ritualistically immersethemselves on behalf of others, typically

departed relatives. Ironically, it arguablycontradicts Alma 34:32-35 in the Book of Mormon. Thats no surprise, for Joseph Smithdid not remain consistent in his theology whilehe was an alleged prophet of God. For instance,Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of GreatPrice, which are polytheistic, are worlds apartfrom the Book of Mormons more orthodoxtheology.

But what was Paul driving at in I Cor.15:29? "Otherwise, what will those do who arebaptized for the dead? If the dead are not raisedat all, why then are they baptized for them?"Notice the general context of the chapter

concerned Pauls rebuttal against the skepticalCorinthian Christians who denied the resurrection(v. 12). In order to get eternal life and salvation,we have to be resurrected since Paul didnt teachthe immortality/eternity of the soul. The Greekword translated "for" in verse 29, which is"huper," can mean "in view of," "for the hope of,""instead of," "for the realization of," "over," and"above," not just "for" only. To put in "for thehope of" really makes sense. So Paul meantsomething like this here: "Why be baptized forthe hope (or in view of) the dead, if you don'tthink they will be raised? Why were you baptizedto begin with, if the dead are not resurrected,since that's the only way to gain eternal life?"Also, note that we are baptized into Christ's

death, as a partial reenactment of what He did inHis life, as per Rom. 6:3-6 and Col. 2:12-13. Ourburial in the water for our sins is a symbolicreenactment of His entombment in the earth forthree days and three nights after He bore theworld's sins.

Now the Mormon church's motives for

baptizing dead people arent altogether bad.They want to believe those who never even

heard about Jesus or those who heard but didlittle about it can still be saved. As explainedalready above, the Bible does give the previously

uncalled their first chance to be saved in the nextlife. The vast majority will be saved, but onlyafter they get resurrected in the secondresurrection after the millennium ends (asdescribed in the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15). If there's no going toheaven or hell or purgatory right at death, and noimmortal soul and no continued consciousness,then God can save (nearly) the whole worldactually, not just potentially.

Can the Virgin Mary Presently MakeAppearances on Earth?

So then, is the Virgin Mary presentlyconscious, in heaven or elsewhere? Can she thenvisit people on earth? The problem we face hereis twofold: 1. Are the dead alive? 2. Can otherspirit beings besides God and the holy angelsvisit people? More generally, can the dead makeappearances at sances? But as alreadyexplained above, the Bible teaches the deadaren't conscious until the resurrection. No saint,including the Virgin Mary, can hear the prayers of faithful Catholics. So the Virgin Mary couldn't beleaving heaven to visit people. But then, thisleads to the second question: Could other spiritbeings be visiting the dead? And are they goodspirit beings . . . or bad ones? Now fakery likely iscommon in this area. Early in the last century thefamous magician Houdini exposed many lying

mediums during purported sances they heldwith him. But if a real spirit force really doesappear, it's a lying "angel. That is, it's an evilangel, or demon, who is speaking and acting. Forexample, when King Saul got a purported visitfrom the judge Samuel when the former went tothe "witch" (really, medium) at Endor in I Samuel28:3-25. Notice that "Samuel" here told Saul in


12/13

12

advance a true prediction of his dreadful fate. Sonot everything a demon says has to be wrong orfalse in a sance. Compare this demon's way of operating to what God let Satan do in Job 1-2.Hence, not everything the children of Fatima

hear from "The Virgin Mary" would be false. Butsuch a spiritual source should be avoided, notrelied upon.

What Did the Jews of Jesus Day Believeabout the State of the Dead?

No one should assume that what the Jewsof Jesus day taught about the state of the deadis Biblically accurate. For example, the Pharisees

and Sadducees had different views aboutwhether people are resurrected or not.Obviously, both sides couldnt be right! Thisdivision proves many first-century Jews had awrong view of the afterlife. Paul perceived andtook advantage of their division on this issuewhen standing before the Sanhedrin, the Jewishruling council under the Romans (Acts 23:6-7).(He later (Acts 24:20-21) somewhat regretted thathe did so!) Acts 23:8 explains the sectariandivision among the Jews concerning whether thedead would live again: "For the Sadducees saythat there is no resurrection--and no angel orspirit; but the Pharisees confess both." On thesame subject, note that Jesus affirmed theresurrection of the dead when debating with theSadducees in Luke 20:27-38.

So if Jews in Jesus' time did believe thedead were conscious, they didnt believe whatthe Bible itself taught in the Old Testament, as

explained above. And, as the case of theSadducees shows, they plainly denied theresurrection of the dead despite Scripture didteach it (Isaiah 26:19; Eze. 37:1-14; Dan. 12:2). Sowhat the Jews believed wasn't necessarily correct,no more than in their (mainstream) view, theMessiah was only a conquering king, not asuffering servant Just because they knew and

know Hebrew doesn't mean their interpretationsof their own holy book are automatically reliableand privileged. The beliefs of an ancientHellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jew like Philo, wholived in Alexandria in Egypt, may have been

influenced by pagan Greek ideas of theimmortality of the soul or the state of the dead.The Jewish book Wisdom of Solomon sees an evilfate for the wicked dead, but doesn't apparentlybelieve theyll suffer eternal torment in hell, but

just ultimately be total destroyed.

The apocryphal book of Enoch (writtenapparently around the time period Jesus lived orsomewhat before) pictures the (Jewish) dead split

into two basic classes, the wicked and therighteous. The righteous have a place of lightand a fountain. The wicked are split into threefurther classes. One set never was judged duringtheir human lifetimes, but their spirits will beseparated out for great punishment that will bindthem forever. The second group, whocomplained to God, will be resurrected andpunished with torment. The third won't beresurrected to be punished at all, but will just beleft alone to lie unconsciously dead for alleternity. The first century A.D. Jewish historianJosephus said the Pharisees believed that allsouls were imperishable. They also thought thatthe souls of the good people passed into otherbodies, but the souls of the evil were punishedwith "everlasting punishment." Christs chief critics also believed the "souls have a deathlessvigor, and that beneath the earth there arerewards and punishments according as they havebeen devoted to life to virtue or to vice. For the

latter everlasting imprisonment is prescribed; forthe former [i.e., the righteous group] capability of coming to life again." This might not mean,however, that eternal punishment was eternaltorture, as opposed to merely being deadforever.


13/13

13

The Jewish teachers of the schools of Shammai and Hillel thought those who werepartially good and partially evil (i.e., mostpeople!) would be treated differently. The sagesof the Shammai school maintained the half evil

would go down to hell, and later come back up,being purged and refined from sin by the fires of Gehenna. But those of the Hillel school believedGod was so merciful that He wouldn't send suchaverage people down to hell at all. The author of 4 Esdras, an apocryphal book not in the Bible,found it very distressing but self-evident thatonly a few would be saved. The Phariseesapparently invented a story about the righteousgoing to Abraham's bosom as a section of sheol,

or the common grave of humanity, while the restof Sheol was reserved for the wicked. But thatstory doesn't apparently receive coverage inGeorge Foot Moore's multi-volume bookJudaism, which is here the main source aboutancient Jewish views of the afterlife besidesScripture.

In general, just because the Jews believethe Old Testament (to them, the Tanakh) teachesa particular doctrine doesnt mean Christiansshould unthinkingly accept their interpretationsof it. They dont have the right day for thePassover (Nisan 14, not Nisan 15), the right dayfor Pentecost (a Sunday seven weeks after theFeast of Unleavened Bread ends, not Sivan 6), or

the right view of Gods oneness (God is twoBeings presently, not one solitary Person). Afterall, did Jesus uncritically accept their traditionalinterpretations of Scripture? He criticized themfor using various man-made traditions of the oral

law to override the written word of God by (seeMatt. 15:3-13). Just because they know Hebrewdoesnt automatically mean they are correctlyinterpreting their own holy word. An informedChristian knowing English only, but having theHoly Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13), will normallyinterpret the Old Testament better than theinformed Jew knowing both Hebrew and English,but not having the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: Lets Celebrate Because theTruth about Death Has Set Us Free!

In conclusion, lets celebrate because theBible teaches conditional immortality and theannihilation of the wicked! To know our nowdead and unsaved relatives and friends can stillbe saved should warm our hearts. To realize thatnobody is presently burning in hell as a merewarm-up for an eternity of terrible tormentshould cheer our souls. To understand the truthabout the state of the dead should melt away ourown worries about our own eventual deaths(John 8:32): You shall know the truth, and thetruth shall make you free.

BY: ERIC SNOWwww.lionofjudah1.org

This publication is not to be sold.

It is a free educational service intended for personal study and learning. Please knowthat it is not wise to take any mans word for anything, so prove all things for yourselffrom the pages of your own Bible (I Thes. 5:21).

DISTRIBUTED BY:

do you have an immortal soul?

Documents