Matt 10:28 does God really "destroy BOTH" Body AND soul in fiery hell??

The whole notion that references to "sleep" after death refer to the body only and not the whole person is highly suspect. It seems rather evident that the distinguishing characteristic of sleep is lack of consciousness. In the dualistic "body vs soul/spirit" conceptualization, it is the soul / spirit that is the seat of all conciousness (how could it be otherwise?). So it seems rather difficult to argue that the statement "Believer Fred sleeps after death" means that Fred's body sleeps while his soul / spirit is in full flower of conscious activity in the presence of God.

 

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And thus Bob and Andre have no answer but to assume that John was perhaps on LSD and was hallucinating when he saw the redeemed saints in heaven praising God, because they insist that at this time in history they were dead and unconscious.

 

And of course DHK is expecting the reader to forget that this is a vision of the future.

 

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures.

Here is the outline of the book:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I. The things which thou has seen.
John just saw Christ. He describes him in chapter one.

II. The things which are. Chapters 2-5
Chapters 2 and 3 describes the 7 churches present at that time and their condition.
Chapters 4 and 5 was a present heavenly scene at that time that John saw in heaven.

III. From chapter 6 to the end of the book are the things which should be thereafter. They are future. Chapter 5 was not a future event.

If you study the Book of Revelation this is what you will find. Chapter five was not a future event.
The word "saw" is in the past; not the future.

 

I do not think that your argument is correct. Let's say that I agree with you about chapters 2 and 3. Here is the beginning of chapter 4:

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this. At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it....

So chapters 4 and 5 are about events that take place after the events in chapters 2 and 3. So your assertion that chapters 4 and 5 are a "present" (present from John's perspective) description of heaven cannot be reconciled with your assertion that chapters 2 are about the state of the churches at the time that John wrote, unless they occur "right after one another" - and that seems unlikely. One comes after the other, so they both cannot really be "present time" from John's perspective.

This does not prove that the scene in Heaven in chapter 5 has not already taken place (there may be other arguments to deal with that). For this reason, I will back off my claim that Rev 5 is about our future. I believe that it is. But I have no grounds for such claim until I study further.

Of course, you are in the same boat: You have not provided any reason for the reader to believe that the events from Rev 5 have already taken place. Do you have any specific evidence to support your claim that the events in chapter were a "present time to John" view into Heaven?

And, of course, the tense of the word "saw" does not support your position. If I have a vision about the future, I will quite naturally say "I saw the Leafs winning the 2011 Stanley Cup". The fact that the word "saw" is in the past tense does not establish that the content of the vision of John has already happened.

 

While I agree with your take on this subject, in all fairness, this passage is in a prophetic sense, which means that even if it's a future event, it can be spoken of in past tense, and telling the prophecy can be in the present tense in relation to othe subjects.

IOW, "I saw (past) this take place, and when it takes place, they are singing (present)."

 

Look at the context once more:

Here is the outline of the book:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Now we come to chapter five, and examine the overall context:

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
--John is writing those things which he saw in 98 A.D., at the time that he wrote this epistle. These are the things that are, according to 1:19, at the time of the writing of John. What did he see?

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Of course he saw many other things as well. But he saw redeemed saints singing and praising God. They were out of every nation. They were of every type of background. They were the saved--the dead in Christ, those that Paul refers to in 1Thes.4:16. The dead in Christ shall rise first.
Only the resurrection had not taken place yet. The Lord gave John eyes to see the spirits of them that were in heaven. He was able to see the angels as well--spirit being without bodies. He was able to look upon God without dying, something man cannot do. The resurrection had not taken place. He was not seeing resurrected bodies. He was seeing those who had been redeemed that had died before him.
Chapter six starts with the events that are future in what John will see.

 

No, that is not correct. The churches were on earth. The events in chapters 4 and 5 run concurrently with what is happening in the churches, only those events are in heaven. What is happening in heaven is happening on earth at the same time.

It is very simple:
I was means: I was.
They sang means: They sang.
I beheld means: I beheld.
They said means: They said.

If you can't understand those very simple statements, all made in the past tense, then please go back to grammar school.

 

DHK, you are just claiming that, in Rev 5, he saw "things that are, according to 1:19, at the time of the writing of John". You have given the reader no reason whatsoever to believe this statement. Nothing you have posted rules out a vision of the future state of affairs in Heaven. You cite Rev 1:19, but this does not support your case: Here it is:

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.

You obviously believe that the stuff in Rev 5 does not fall into the "things which shall be hereafter" category. What is your justification? It cannot be the past tense of "I saw" since even visions of the future will be reported as being in the past - "I saw the Leafs win the Stanley Cup in 2011".

 

You are simply and obviously mistaken. Even posters who share your general view disagree with you on this.

If you were to establish that the content of Rev 5 is not a vision of the future but instead a snapshot view into the state of affairs in Heaven at the time of John, then you would have a point.

But you have not done this. And no person with a lick of sense would argue that because John says "I beheld X" this means that X has necessarily already happened, if the possibility of a vision of the future has not been ruled out.

 

How about you establishing the evidence that it is a vision of the future. There is nothing to indicate that this a vision of the future. Nothing. It falls within the parameters of the outline given in 1:19. All the verbs used are in the past tense, contrasted to those in chapter six, where the angels tell John repeatedly: "Come and see," which indicates future. You give the evidence that chapter five is a future event.

 

Bob, I don't know whether to say that you have falsely accused me, deliberately misrepresented what I have said, or simply don't understand what I have said. But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

I never once said or even implied that Abraham had already been resurrected. Please provide evidence. Christ said that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Are you willing to take him at his word or not. It seems to me that you are calling him a liar, or to put it more politely, that you disbelieve his word, and continue in a state of disbelieve.
God is not the God of the dead.
God is not the God of those that are in a state of soul sleep (provide scripture).
God is not the God of those that are annihilated.

He is the God of the living. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. The living that the Lord referred to were indeed the patriarchal fathers--Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--whose bodies to this day are in the grave. The resurrection has not yet taken place. Yet God is the God of the living, and these patriarchal fathers are with Jesus today, for God is the God of the living. How is that. They are with Christ in their spirits. Again, let me emphasize: this Scripture only demonstrates that the doctrine of soul sleep is a hoax, and could never be true. God is the God of the living not of those sleepy souls. You have no case.

 

No, Bob, You haven't done as you have claimed.
There wasn't complete agreement.
When Jesus made the statement: "God is not the God of the dead but of the living," there is nothing in the record to say that the Sadducees were in agreement. It was at that point that the Sadducees were defeated in their argument. They did not believe in the resurrection, and though Jesus had proved the point well, that didn't change their minds. They went on in their unbelief. He had defeated their argument, but in no way were they in complete agreement with Jesus. Because they continued in their unbelief, to say they were in agreement would make Christ a heretic, because the minds of the Sadducees were unaffected by Christ's words.