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

I can't ignore something that is not there. You haven't demonstrated anything from Scripture except a lack of knowledge about the subject of death in the Bible.

Bob, you are not even reasonable. If the Sadduces were so convinced and in so much agreement, then why didn't they repent right there and then and start believing in the resurrection. They didn't. It wasn't a historical monumental event in history where all of a sudden the Sadducees began to believe in the Resurrection. No such event ever took place. They weren't in agreement with Christ. They were simply defeated in argument.
As it says so many times throughout the gospels:
"They were astonished at his doctrine."
"No man from thenceforth dared ask him any more questions."
This happened many times throughout the gospel accounts, but it didn't mean that all of a sudden that either the Scribes, Pharisees, or Sadducees ever changed their doctrine.

Yes, and thus the defeat in arguement. They had nothing more to say. They could not argue against the wisdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rather it is much easier to see how you take an OT text out of its context and try to make is say something that it doesn't, or at least imply the same.

Your implication is that after death there is no life, therefore only soul sleep. You pretend to get that doctrine from this verse. How ludicrous!
Let's go to your friend--Jamieson, Faucett and Brown--whom you have quoted before, and see what he says on this matter:

What Isaiah is obviously saying is that once someone is dead (whether believer or unbeliever) cannot praise God either from the grave or more accurately from Sheol (the place of the departed spirits--as described in Luke 16 in the story of the rich man and Lazarus). In that story, whether it was the rich man, or Lazarus, or Abraham, or any of the OT saints, or even the saints in Revelation 5:9 that John saw--Isaiah says that none of them praise God. Why? The earth doesn't hear them. They are dead--physically. He is speaking of physical death; not their spirits. He is speaking of what this world sees. He cannot here Abraham or any of the patriarchal fathers praise God, though that doesn't mean he doesn't believe that they don't praise God. Of course he believes that they are even now praising God, in heaven (or paradise) --but not on earth. The context is on earth, not in heaven. You are trying to prove an unscriptural doctrine by taking Scripture out of context--something that has come a common practice for you.

 

I would think that Psalm 146 would be an extreme challenge for those who dispute "soul sleep". Bob posted it, but I will repost the relevant part:

Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Is it not true that the allegedly immortal soul / spirit is the seat of thinking? It would seem to have to be if the "eternal torment" supporter's argument about Luke 16 is correct (that this is a real account of the after-death experiences of the rich man and Lazarus).

How can thoughts perish, which the above text rather clearly asserts, if the "soul / spirit" lives on? Were Lazarus and the rich man not having thoughts?

 

I don't know where Bob got his translation. Perhaps it is the J.W.'s NWT, that has similar doctrine's as Bob. Here is what the KJV says:

Psalms 146:3-4 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Note that there is nothing about soul sleep given the proper context and translation. The context is: Who are you going to put your trust in: princes or the Lord? Humans or God? Do not put your trust in princes, in whom is no help.
What happens to man? He dies. His body returns to the earth, and as in all mankind his thoughts perish at that time. He no longer can give you any help or advice. This is the meaning of that passage. It is not speaking of soul sleep. It is speaking of David giving advice to others on earth.

The very next verse, in contrast says:

Psalms 146:5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
--God's advice to mankind is eternal. He is changeless and is always there to help. Trust and hope in Him for your help.

 

You seem to argue as if the meaning of "his thoughts perish" is that he can no "longer give help or advice". But when the writer says "his thoughts perish", he is making a rather clear and unambiguous statement about the content of the man's thoughts - they perish. I do not think you have faced the real challenge of this text. What person would write "Fred's thoughts perish at death" when the intended meaning is "Fred's thought continue after death, they are just inexpressible to others".

This would be very bad communication indeed, given that the writer has numerous ways to express the inability of a post-death soul to communicate to the living. Why did he choose to say that man's thoughts perish if he meant that they do not?

Suppose Fred is rendered incapable of communicating in any way to the outside world. Let's suppose he is given a drug which renders him incapable of any movement or sound, etc. However, Fred's mind remains perfectly functional. Would we say that "Fred's thoughts have perished". I would think not.

 

The book of Psalms is a poetical book. Keep that in mind. "His thoughts perish" is a phrase put their for emphasis. There is no more advise in that person's mind to ask. He has no more thoughts. He is in the grave. The only help you have now is from the Lord, as the psalmist directs you to in verse 5.

Commentary after commentary reiterates the same thing. Do your own research here. The basic premise here is: Don't put your trust in man; rather trust in God. Everything else is descriptive of that basic thought. It is not deep theology. Don't try to make the Scriptures say something that it is not teaching. He is simply saying that one cannot give advice when one is dead. How simple can it be.

 

HP: If I were to say that at death a rich man’s treasures perish, would that not be true in one sense and at the same time be true that his wealth went nowhere in relationship to others now in possession of them? It would appear well within the bounds of reason to assume that the text in question can be speaking in one sense that indeed the thoughts of the deceased are perished, yet that in no wise is to suggest that in another sense ones thoughts are alive and well, as DHK aptly pointed out.

It would clearly appear to me that someone is desperately in need of a proof text to try and get the one in question to walk on all four legs to support an unsupportable notion such as soul sleep.

 

I would humbly suggest that the one who is "walking on four legs" is the one who tries to rework the meaning of the word "perish" so that the thing that perishes continues to exist. Or the one who always inserts "the body but not the soul" when numerous Biblical texts draw no such distinction.

The analogy to treasures is not valid (at least as I understand it). The reason lies in the fact that "treasures", by virtue of their very nature, can indeed "perish in relation to the original owner" when he dies yet otherwise continue to exist.

Thoughts are an entirely different type of thing - they are necessarily bound to a specific person, there are no free-floating thoughts. This is not true of treasure - money and gold exist independent of their "owner". When a person dies, his car continues to exist. But if the Scriptures say that a man's thoughts perish, and one is going to use the "treasures" argument, one needs to ask: Can thoughts perish in this same way - in the sense of having an existence independent of their owner (like treasures can).

We all know that the answer is no.

 

The answer is yes.
Even as early, and before the time of Moses, the thoughts of mankind have existed up until the present time. I have the thoughts of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Dwight L. Moody, Albert Barnes, and many others, as they penned them in a book, wrote them down, and had them published. And thus I have the thoughts of God conveyed to me through men, the authors of the Bible extending from Moses to the Apostle John. Their thoughts do not perish. They are written down forever preserved in the Word of God. Other people have their thoughts preserved for centuries, long after their deaths.
Thus the analogy given you was very apt.

The present thoughts of a man will "perish" in the sense that the prince will no longer able to give his subjects advice. However Jesus Christ, who abides with us forever, and is the same: yesterday, today and forever, will ever be present to give advice to us. The thoughts of a prince will perish in the senst that his existence on earth is transitory. The thoughts of God toward us are infinite; his counsel and wisdom in unfathomable. It is unthinkable that man should trust in man when he is able to trust in the living God. What a wonderful lesson this psalm is teachinng us. And yet there are some that are defending a heretical doctrine from it, by trying to twist the obvious meaning of it.

 

Then you have the written words, not the thoughts. Thoughts are thoughts - they are not books or documents.

Here is the text again:

Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit departs, hereturns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish

Let the reader decide if thought as made manifest in writings perish on the day that the writer himself dies. That is how the world must operate if your argument is to have any force.

 

Psalms 139:17-18 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

 

I am not sure what the point of this post is in respect to the matter at issue.

This is a text about God's thoughts, not man's thoughts.

The Psalm 146 text clearly states that on the day he dies, the thoughts of a man perish. This cannot possibly refer to the "thoughts as recorded in writing" since these obviously do not perish on the day that a man dies.

So that counterargument has been dispatched.

It is true, as per HP's post, that "treasures" (money, gold, etc.) do not die with the man who owns them and therefore one can say that these treasures perish in relation to the owner of them who has died, but yet do not perish in and of themselves.

But of course, thoughts are not like treasures - the former cannot exist independent of a "thinker" of those thoughts. So that argument fails as well.

There really appears to be no wiggle room here, short of declaring that "perish" has a meaning that connotes continued existence. Such a meaning, would, of course, be diametrically opposed to the nominal meaning of "perish".

Of course such radical redefinitions of words to mean precisely the opposite of what their literal meanings are is an accomplished art form among those who believe that the Scriptures teach eternal torment.

 

You are stretching the psalm to the limit--far beyond the limits of proper hermeneutical principles will allow you, and I think you probably know that.

And in the "Treasury of David" we find the "thoughts" of C.H. Spurgeon written down in three volumes on what David wrote on the Psalms. You can access them on the internet if you so desire. They are his thoughts recorded for us in book form, just as much as money is left as an inheritance is left by another who has died. The one left his thoughts recorded in book form. The other left his money. Ultimately both will perish, as someday this earth will also perish.

This is not true, as demonstrated above. You are grasping at straws.

You have fixed your meanining of the word perish in this verse, and have taken it out of the context of the Psalm. Yes my thoughts also perish when I die. My wife would no longer be able to count on my thoughts, my advice, my counsel, etc. if I should die right now. She would have to rely on the counsel of others. To her my thoughts, my advice would have perished the day that I die. The best advice that she can count on is that of the Lord. His thoughts never perish. Now if you keep it in that context you won't have any problem. But you keep taking the word "perish" out of this simple context where the thoughts of princes are contrasted to the thoughts of God just to prove a heretical doctrine and you miserably fail. You need a course in hermeneutics. You can't read into the Scriptures doctrines which are not there.

You are the one redefining words, and in fact, redefining the entire meaning of the whole psalm!

 

Bob has a penchant for going through the Bible and picking out verses at random, and then forcing heretical doctrines into them, when in each and every case, the context is saying something different than what Bob would believe it would say. Bob would stand on his head (or rather make the Scripture stand on its head) in order to support what the Bible calls damnable heresies. And the doctrine of soul sleep is just that—a damnable heresy not taught anywhere in the Scriptures. The Bible needs to be butchered (not rightly divided) in order for one to get that doctrine out of the Bible. Consider what Bob posts:

Absolutely. The living, whom God is the God of, are up in heaven—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is who Christ referred to. Though the resurrection has not yet taken place, God, the God of the living is present with the patriarchal fathers even right now. He is the God of the living. And those “dead” in the Lord, are alive with Christ right now. For to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Your conclusion stated above is only partially correct, and it must be put in the proper context. The dead never praise the Lord. The spiritually dead don’t praise the Lord. The eternally dead don’t praise the Lord. Both curse God.
But as for us (the living), those that are alive in Christ—believers—we will praise our God. We are not dead, not physically, not spiritually, not eternally. Because I am born again, I will never die. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I will simply leave this earthly body and join my Saviour in heaven. That is not death. That is leaving this earth and going to my home in heaven to be with Christ. There is no such thing as soul sleep.

Yes, Worship in the spirit. That is the only way one can worship God. It is a command that Jesus gave. And since he gave it to the Samaritan woman in John 4, he couldn’t have been speaking about the dead, could he??

Here is another passage often taken out of context by Bob. More aimless proof-texting.
The author is speaking from an earthly point of view. Those that are dead do not give thanks or praise to God. Isaiah can’t see them do that, nor can the king, or anyone in the nation of Israel. They are dead and in the grave (though their spirits are alive and well with Christ).
From Isaiah’s point of view not even those in Sheol could thank God. Sheol is the place of the departed dead (departed spirits of the dead). It is described quite aptly by Christ in Luke 16:19-31—in the narrative of Lazarus and the rich man. Sheol was the place where both Hell and paradise were located. It was the place of the departed dead—both lived, as Christ described in Luke 16. That narrative totally destroys any thought of soul sleep.
What the psalmist says is that those who are dead cannot thank God as far as the rest of mankind is concerned. Bob, if you can ask your great, great grandmother to give thanks for the meal this evening, then be sure to tell me about it. The reason she can’t is because she is dead. She resides in either one of two places depending on whether she trusted Christ or not.

Will your great, great, grandmother give thanks for the food, Bob. Who will give thanks? Those in Sheol (present Hell or Heaven) cannot give thanks for the food on earth Bob. You have to do that. And that is the meaning of this verse. It is giving thanks in the presence of others. The verse says nothing about memory. You are making things up, inserting them into Scripture, in order to support your imaginary doctrine.

We have been over this one many times already. Again this is speaking about the thoughts of men in the presence of men, not in the presence of God. When man dies he surely will have thoughts in the presence of God—thoughts of regret, of sorrow, and then for others thoughts of rejoicing. But for all, after death there will be thoughts. They will not perish in eternity. Only in relation to others still living on the earth will they perish. But you don’t like to leave things in their context. You will pull any verse out of its context just to support a damnable heresy (what the Bible itself calls it).
--This is the pattern that Bob takes with Scripture.
Quote the Scripture, don’t show the context, and then rip it out of its context to make it mean something other than its intended meaning. But every cult operates on that basis.