Is There a Contradiction?

[Josheb]

I do not see the NT as presenting it as death, as in the human spirit departing the human body.
Rather it is described as a change of the body. . .in the twinkling of an eye.

So, your answer is no.

Where does the text state the spirit leaves the body, and if it is a change of body then the spirit doesn't leave the body, the body housing the spirit is changed. Furthermore, the "twinkling" (vs. 52) specifically states the dead are changed. That change would not occur if Enoch were not dead. Can you see the inconsistencies in Post 52?

 

[Josheb]

A exception has been occasionally made by God.

Surely that is true. However, the exceptions in God's word never make God's word contradictory (and we're not supposed to base sound doctrine on the exceptions to the rules), so that doesn't truly resolve the seeming contradiction.

 

[Josheb]

What do you mean by spiritual body?

The better question is, what does scripture mean by spiritual body?

 

[Eleanor]

I agree Enoch didn't physically die, but this one translation change of Enoch was a single unique occurrence in all of human history. Nobody alive at Christ next coming will survive His appearing. After all, scripture says nobody can look on God's face and live through the experience. The human body must pass first through death and then be changed in the resurrection process before they can view God's face without perishing.

Except for all those of 1 Th 4:17, which Paul, along with the other early Christians, believed would occur in their lifetime because Jesus said he was returning "soon." (Rev 22:12).

So, your answer is no.

Where does the text state the spirit leaves the body, and if it is a change of body then the spirit doesn't leave the body, the body housing the spirit is changed. Furthermore, the "twinkling" (vs. 52) specifically states the dead are changed. That change would not occur if Enoch were not dead. Can you see the inconsistencies in Post 52?

I can see your inconsistency regarding Enoch.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: If death is defined as "separation" then it is a form of death.

I agree.

But why would we defined death that way?

I can't answer the "Why would we define death that way". Many times I've wish there was a God inspired a bible dictionary. I have to rely on guys who know Hebrew and Greek.

Are there any other wholly-scriptural definitions of death that would also answer the question asked in the affirmative? If so, then what are they?

well, there are bible dictionaries on line to provide insight I suppose.... like Death - Easton's Bible Dictionary Online

Well, the fact of scripture is that scripture uses the word "death" and the concept of "dead" quite diversely. That shouldn't be a point of dispute for anyone here, but I can, if asked, expound on that further with LOTS of scripture. Some here implicitly define death singularly (maybe some did so explicitly). Given the diversity of scripture's revelation of death that is a mistake, imo. It is, apparently, assumed that a person already dead in Christ does not physically die even though Paul stated quite bluntly the body of corruptible mortal flesh is done away with. Are we to believe Enoch is walking around in a body of flesh and blood that cannot inherit the kingdom of God rather than a resurrected body of flesh and bone like the one Jesus had when he walked through walls with gaping holes in it? I find that immensely inconsistent with the whole of scripture, and it's due solely to various selective uses of scripture and the emphasis of one definition of death over another.

Insightful ... I agree.
I am of the opinion that Enoch at some point has to get a new incorruptible body and I classify this as death.

Aside: When I was younger and even less knowledgeable I thought one died and went to heaven with current body made alive again. Then I thought it would be better to die at an age where my body was not worn out ... *giggle*

Btw, 1 Corinthians 15:51 is defined as death. In speaking of the resurrection as a whole (not the resurrection of those buried in the dirt only) Paul explicitly stated that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies. Everything he wrote thereafter occurs within that context, including verse 51. We won't all "sleep" (be dead in the ground) but we will all be changed (it does not come to life unless it dies). Until the moment of resurrection we ALL remain corruptible and mortal - even though we have ALL been crucified with Christ and no longer live. To be dead to sin is to be dead in Christ. The once dead-in-sin Christian who is NOW dead in Christ will still be changed yet again. It is only through the process of transformative resurrection that our salvation from sin and death is made complete. Paul was already dead in Christ when he said that which is sown does not come to life unless it dies. The entire 1 Corinthians 15 narrative is couched in the falsehood some were teaching: the resurrection had already occurred.

Seems to me that we will be changed so much that I won't recognize myself possibly.
I wonder if we will recognize anyone we knew given:
Isaiah 65:17 Behold, I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things [of life] will not be remembered or come to mind.
...gee, sounds like I won't know of my past ... gee, I might have to learn something as elementary as "how many toes do I have".

Unless that which is sown* does not come to life unless it dies. Therefore, Enoch did die, and he died in multiple ways, but he wasn't first buried in the ground. It's not complicated when the whole of scripture is considered.

That's my leaning.

 

[Josheb]

I can't answer the "Why would we define death that way".

You understand the importance of the question, though, yes?

Many times I've wish there was a God inspired a bible dictionary.

LOL! Wouldn't that be nice. Imagine how surprised we'd all be if we could go back in time and ask Jesus or Paul to clarify and explain in greater detail X, Y, or Z.

I have to rely on guys who know Hebrew and Greek.

Ha! Don't ever rely on me or my posts! Please check every word I post and verify it for yourself, especially when it comes to original languages. I'm casually studying Greek and Hebrew and going through Mounce's textbook on Greek and I'm about homicidal every time I open anything on the subject. aaaarrrggh!

(i used to have hair)

.

 

[fastfredy0]

You understand the importance of the question, though, yes?

Yes, all questions are of limited value if the definition of the terms in the question are not clearly understood by the reader.

I'm casually studying Greek and Hebrew and going through Mounce's textbook on Greek and I'm about homicidal every time I open anything on the subject. aaaarrrggh!

You have more ambition in this area than I. Hopefully the language interpreters were inspired by the Spirit too.

 

[Josheb]

Hopefully the language interpreters were inspired by the Spirit too.

Oooooo.... That is a point of much reflection for me.

You've all (presumably) read my posts on the word "gospel" and how the New Testament writers used a word that carried specific denotative and connotative meaning other than what is nowadays assumed, as well as my commentary on the words "hel," hades," and "tartarus," (they mean something very specific in first century pagan cultures) and the premise Jesus probably did NOT use those words. Would translators be truer to the original words spoken by Jesus if they translated those words as "the grave" or "sheol," or would they be truer to Jesus' preaching by being truer to the Greek if they translated them as "the realm of the lesser god hades/hel"? Not germane to this op but.....


Maybe that'll be the topic of my next theological questions op .

 

[fastfredy0]

You've all (presumably) read my posts on the word "gospel" and how the New Testament writers used a word that carried specific denotative and connotative meaning other than what is nowadays assumed, as well as my commentary on the words "hel," hades," and "tartarus," (they mean something very specific in first century pagan cultures) and the premise Jesus probably did NOT use those words. Would translators be truer to the original words spoken by Jesus if they translated those words as "the grave" or "sheol," or would they be truer to Jesus' preaching by being truer to the Greek if they translated them as "the realm of the lesser god hades/hel"? Not germane to this op but.....

Way beyond my level of expertise. You may have to talk to people like James White for that level of understanding.

 

[Josheb]

Way beyond my level of expertise. You may have to talk to people like James White for that level of understanding.

I'm sure we'd agree on the former premise but maybe not on the latter. I've received a lot of pushback on the latter.


Simply put: Jesus was not affirming pagan mythologies of the surrounding cultures (implicitly or explicitly). Those mythologies asserted a view of death and the afterlife much different than 1) old school Judaism and 2) the teachings of Jesus. On that I'm sure White would agree. The language of the Greek manuscripts, therefore, proves problematic. On that I suspect he and I would have mixed views (agreeing in some respects but maybe not in others). It doesn't take a doctorate to understand these things (which is sort of one of the things I like about White: as well researched and sophisticated his arguments are sometimes, in their essence they are easily grasped by anyone once the case made is understood).


God night all. May your morning coffee be stronger than your day (and if not, Jesus surely is ).