bob wrote:There isn't a single passage in the entire Bible which says any bit of anyone goes to heaven when they die. This is verifiable.
In Heaven our souls will be united with new incorruptible bodies - 1 Corinthians 15
It took like two seconds to find that.
Well let's read 1 Corinthians 15:
* Number of times heaven-going is referred to: zero
* Number of times souls are referred to: zero
* Number of times souls re-united with new incorruptible bodies are referred to: zero
In this chapter Paul actually says that unless there is a resurrection, Christians have perished and have no hope (1 Corinthians 15:18). This is the complete opposite of your claim. Did you have another passage in mind?
bob wrote:I think he is actually lying.
bob, because I'm an incredibly tolerant guy I'm going to ask you to edit out this breach of forum rules. Alternatively I can edit it for you, and issue you a formal warning. Make your choice. Meanwhile, let's look at your completely uncritical copy/paste from a Fundamentalist website.
bob wrote:Matthew 10:28
"And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
So the first quotation here says explicitly that both body and soul are destroyed in what is translated here as 'hell'. Not 'preserved forever', but 'destroyed'. The complete opposite of an immortal soul, both body and soul are destroyed. Let's move on.
bob wrote:"But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive at the time of this statement? No. So how can they be described as living? Only if they are actually immortal souls that were alive after death (and prior to their physical resurrection in the future). If they are immortal souls, immaterial beings, then the passage begins to make sense.
The passage quoted here states explicitly that God is the God of the living because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be resurrected in the future, not because they are immortal souls in heaven in the present. This passage is well within orthodox Second Temple Judaism, and is almost identical to several rabbinical statements defending the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead using the Old Testament statement 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living'. In Second Temple Judaism this passage was understood as a reference to the resurrection, not as a reference to immortal souls. Unsurprisingly, this is explicitly the interpretation given here by Jesus.
bob wrote:Matthew 17:1-3
In this scene from the scripture, Jesus is talking to Elijah and Moses. They obviously died long before Jesus was born, so how could this scene be true unless they exist truly as immortal souls, and not simply as physical bodies? Here once again we have another example of disembodied life after death, something that is ONLY possible if we exist as living immortal souls.
Ah, the false dichotomy again. In this case the claimant tries to make too much of the passage, to the extent of contradicting the doctrine of the immortal soul; if these are immortal souls, how are they even visible? Bodies are visible, visions are visible, but since when have immortal souls been visible? I note that the claimant carefully omits Jesus' own description of the event in verse 9; 'Do not tell anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead'. In the words of the text itself, this was a vision, Moses and Elijah were not actually present.
bob wrote:Luke 16:19-31
In this passage, the dead are repeatedly described as performing actions that are characteristic of the living. But that’s not all! God tells the rich man that it is at least hypothetically possible that the dead could “go” to the living. Once again, the dead are not dead. How can this be? It can only be possible if the physically dead are still immaterially alive. That’s why as Christians, we recognize and believe that what we are living souls who are immortal by nature.
Even as early as Martin Luther (who believed in the immortal soul, as well as heaven and hell), this was understood as a parable directed against the beliefs of Jesus' religious opponents and not to be interpreted literally. The key reasons for this are firstly that it was spoken directly to the Pharisees, not taught to Jesus' disciples (Luke 16:14-15, 'The Pharisees (who loved money) heard all this and ridiculed him. But Jesus said to them'; the parable of the rich man and Lazarus follows), secondly because it takes a well known belief of Second Temple Judaism and deliberately changes it in a manner not found in the contemporary literature, thirdly that the listeners to whom it was directed would have been shocked and offended at the story since it contradicted their beliefs concerning heaven and hell, and finally that when Jesus actually taught explicitly on the subject of death and judgment (as he did on many occasions), he consistently taught that no one is rewarded or punished until they are resurrected; there is no doctrine of an 'intermediate state' with 'immortal souls' in Jesus' teaching.
zender wrote:I just think he had a terrible dream. Maybe he'd been reading Revelations or some other scary part of the Bible earlier in the evening, but I don't doubt that he sincerely believes what he is saying.
zender wrote:Anyway, I think Hell is a "real place" for a lot (40-60%?) of Christians, and I think Heaven is a "real place" for the vast majority (90+%?).
These are still dominant beliefs among Christians in the US, but not elsewhere; the Anglican Church (one of the largest Christian denominations), abandoned the traditional doctrine of hell in the 1940s.
zender wrote:ETA- I'm not sure if a person's vision is more credible if it happens now (and you can get it straight from the person's mouth), or if it happened thousands of years ago in a time when miracles and talking with God were apparently more common. Is it possible that if this man had lived thousands of years ago, he would have been considered a prophet, and his story might have made it into the Bible?
According to the Law of Moses, anyone claiming to speak for God or to have a vision had to pass a few key tests; they had to hold to religious orthodoxy within the Judaism of the time (which this guy does not), they had to perform miracles, and they had to prove they could foretell the future accurately. I think this guy would have had a problem with all of those issues.
bob wrote:No, no, didn't you get the memo? Back in the middle ages people started reading the Bible for themselves and realized there was no mention of soul or hell etc.
If you're going to refer to what I wrote, please do it accurately. It would help to quote me directly.