• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Death Final?

Earthling

David Henson
Death is final. All interpretations help one understand and be comfortable with death whether they live forever or have full knowledge of life before they have their final death.

Is there proof that there is life after death?

What scripture says and what makes sense when relating to the world are completely different. It's one thing to believe to be comfortable with death; it's another to say it is fact because that's what you believe.

It seem s to me that what you are really saying is that we should be comfortable with death, and I agree.

What I disagree with is the statement that what scripture says and what makes sense when relating to the world are completely different. The reason for me disagreeing is multiple. First, it's a blanket statement that isn't necessarily relevant or true. Scripture may say that stealing, murdering, raping, lying is bad and the world may agree. Scripture may also say reincarnation and the caste system is true and the world, at least the part of the world where the scripture is that says it, agrees. Right or wrong.

The same, of course, applies to resurrection, or hell.

At this point I would have to also point out that, no matter what we believe regarding the finality of death, we can't be absolutely sure of it. At least, not at this point.

One other thing which your post, for some reason, reminded me of. Prayer.

When my younger brother was dying of cancer the people he worked with prayed for him not to die. I did not. Why? Because it's nonsensical to pray to God something that is against his will. We all get sick, we all die, because that is God's will. So why ask God for something that is against h is will?
 

Earthling

David Henson
Are there any scriptures that would be in favor of just dying and that being the end of it, as a positive thing?

I don't think so, at least not as such, but it does indicate that some will choose everlasting life and some would choose everlasting destruction, which is death. And these people know the difference. I'm talking about those after the first resurrection mentioned in the book of Revelation.

Well, consider the demons. They know and yet shudder. The demons , or disobedient angels were created an indeterminate time in the very distant past. Millions, maybe billions or trillions of years ago, and they know they will be destroyed some time in the future. They had to have seen that coming one would think.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Can you quote some?

Do you believe there isnt? :eek:

Edit. All the verses on heaven and hell, no death of the soul (whatever the condition), and, what you (JW) believe about god making the earth back where it was when adam and eve, doesnt exist?

God will bring billions back from death by means of a resurrection. (Acts 24:15) However, those who refuse to learn God’s ways after being raised to life will be destroyed forever with no hope of a resurrectiona.—Revelation 20:14, 15.

Earth. God created the earth to be mankind’s eternal home. (Psalm 104:5; 115:16;Ecclesiastes 1:4) God will bless obedient people with perfect health and everlasting life in an earthly paradise.—Psalm 37:11,34.

Life after death

I never heard a christian denomination as a whole, JW included, that does not believe in any concept of life after death.

Unless you have better verses?

(Remember, Im not christian. Im like a person who is at a sports event but doesnt have a favorite team. I cheer who wins and who made a pass that makes sense to the game without siding on either team to disprove the other.)
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
I have little doubt that biblical scripture supports life after death. This is a belief held by many other religions. From a scientific perspective it’s hard to either support or refute it. As a theist I share that belief with the Christians.

As for the resurrection narrative, if seen allegorically, it is perhaps the strongest argument for life after death in the NT. If the resurrection is taken literally, it contradicts science, and makes little sense to most who are not Christian.

Well. I don't know what to say. I agree with most of it but the scallywag in me wants to argue the contradiction in science at least to some degree. A dead person can be revived. Not entirely dissimilar to the account at 2 Kings 4:32-34. Is that stretching it? I suppose it is. Is it possible that in the future science could resurrect (which simply means raise) the dead, even if they have been dead great periods of time?

Probably not.

OK, maybe I should keep the skallywag within me at bay.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It seem s to me that what you are really saying is that we should be comfortable with death, and I agree.

What I disagree with is the statement that what scripture says and what makes sense when relating to the world are completely different. The reason for me disagreeing is multiple. First, it's a blanket statement that isn't necessarily relevant or true. Scripture may say that stealing, murdering, raping, lying is bad and the world may agree. Scripture may also say reincarnation and the caste system is true and the world, at least the part of the world where the scripture is that says it, agrees. Right or wrong.

The same, of course, applies to resurrection, or hell.

At this point I would have to also point out that, no matter what we believe regarding the finality of death, we can't be absolutely sure of it. At least, not at this point.

One other thing which your post, for some reason, reminded me of. Prayer.

When my younger brother was dying of cancer the people he worked with prayed for him not to die. I did not. Why? Because it's nonsensical to pray to God something that is against his will. We all get sick, we all die, because that is God's will. So why ask God for something that is against h is will?

My condollences with your brother. I think this also helps with my point. Prayer, scripture, and belief in god helps a person handle death. If we knew about death, we would not need god to console us. Would we pray or look to god for someone who stubed their toe? Broken, taken off, or stubed, there is a healing process involved to which no god nor prayer needs to be for nature to run its course. Unless there is proof of god (making a point), believers can only assume or believe god exists as part of the healing process (such as death).

Scripture is based on what writers and people then made sense of the world around them. In their environment and time period they, too, believed in god and depended on people such as prophets to explain who god is.

The reality is death. People throughout many cultures try to make sense of death which they all believe is unknown.

Yet, we assume that since we dont see a tree fall in the forest without us there, we dont know if it makes a sound. Its a philosophical and Zen question, for sure, but why would we think there isnt a sound?

What exactly is the reason we think sound and gravity doesnt work unless we are around it to witness it? Laws of nature isnt dependent on us.

Same as death. Its nice to believe we dont know if the tree makes a sound, but without a brain (flesh), mind (translation of nerve impulses), soul (personality), nor spirit (energy), what exactly is there to exist when, like the fact of gravity, naturally dies?

How does death excape the laws of nature but sound and gravity and pain do not?
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Well. I don't know what to say. I agree with most of it but the scallywag in me wants to argue the contradiction in science at least to some degree. A dead person can be revived. Not entirely dissimilar to the account at 2 Kings 4:32-34. Is that stretching it? I suppose it is. Is it possible that in the future science could resurrect (which simply means raise) the dead, even if they have been dead great periods of time?

Probably not.

OK, maybe I should keep the skallywag within me at bay.

The resurrection is another topic in its own right of course, so its good to avoid wandering too far.

It seems to me, that the different Jewish sects such as the Pharisees and Saducees disagreed strongly about life after death.

What are the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees?

The NT brought our understanding to a new level.

Increasingly there are differences of opinion about what happens after we die amonsgt the followers of Christ.

The resurrection narrative seems to be both the key that unlocks a better understanding or a dense cloud that can obscure the sun of reality from shining.

In that sense we can't really avoid discussing the resurrection if we are investigating what the bible teaches about life after death.

So what's this itch you want to scratch but feel you can't? lol
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Why, though, would you say it sounds like torture? If we weren't meant to get sick, old or die, for example, would it be torture? If we had time to learn and do so much more than we could in just 80 years, and all of the things like crime, disease, poverty, hate, racism, prejudice, corporate, and political corruption, religious and nationalistic oppression, and pollution were done away with along with death, would it still be torture?

But we die. All of that mentioned are desires to keep earthly comfort. Things decay. People. Things. All nature. How are we the exception?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Do you mean like worm food? Or water? Breath? Memory? I'm not sure I follow you.
Everything that exists, exists as an expression of energy, being governed by forces from within it that we do not understand. And we humans cannot even detect all the different existential manifestations and expressions of this energy. So there could be energy phenomena that we are as yet completely unaware, that might resemble what could be called "spirit" energy. Perhaps coalesced and defined within a life form, but remaining extant after that life form has itself ceased and disintegrated.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I gotta say this. In the OP I used the term Syriac Pe****ta , which is an ancient version of the Hebrew scriptures. Part of the word, as you can see, is marked out, like this, ****, because, I assume, some people find the combinations of the letters **** offensive in some way. You know what the word these letters make is, you know what it means. It means the same thing as dung, feces, fecal matter, excrement, poop, poo, #2, manure, crap, ****e, defecation, bowel movement, feculence, stool, deuce, waste, discharge.

I don't get that. All of those words mean the same, so should we censure or censor all of them?

That doesnt make sense. You have assessment and sh/tle cant think of others. I think its if its derogatory and stands on its own. Dont know if they judge it by context. It does distort what youre trying to say.

Pacific northwest city, located at and around; Latitude: 47° 37.216' N, Longitude: 122° 19.75' W

n. 1. A shuttle.
a. 1. Wavering; unsettled; inconstant.

Its the word not context
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
That doesnt make sense. You have assessment and sh/tle cant think of others. I think its if its derogatory and stands on its own. Dont know if they judge it by context. It does distort what youre trying to say.

Pacific northwest city, located at and around; Latitude: 47° 37.216' N, Longitude: 122° 19.75' W

n. 1. A shuttle.
a. 1. Wavering; unsettled; inconstant.

Its the word not context

I don't know. It has never made sense to me. Maybe it's because I was raised to believe that no words were obscene. Intellectuals and the religious tend to disagree with me on that point.

The apostle Paul said not to speak the obscene, but what is obscene? Take the Greek word katabole, which means to lay or cast down as in laying down the seed. The same as the modern day so called F word. It's used in the Bible as in the "founding of the world" Luke 11:50 which refers to Adam and Eve's first offspring. Also with Sarah at Hebrews 11:11.

What is obscene about procreation?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It seem s to me that what you are really saying is that we should be comfortable with death, and I agree.

What I disagree with is the statement that what scripture says and what makes sense when relating to the world are completely different. The reason for me disagreeing is multiple. First, it's a blanket statement that isn't necessarily relevant or true. Scripture may say that stealing, murdering, raping, lying is bad and the world may agree. Scripture may also say reincarnation and the caste system is true and the world, at least the part of the world where the scripture is that says it, agrees. Right or wrong.

The same, of course, applies to resurrection, or hell.

At this point I would have to also point out that, no matter what we believe regarding the finality of death, we can't be absolutely sure of it. At least, not at this point.

One other thing which your post, for some reason, reminded me of. Prayer.

When my younger brother was dying of cancer the people he worked with prayed for him not to die. I did not. Why? Because it's nonsensical to pray to God something that is against his will. We all get sick, we all die, because that is God's will. So why ask God for something that is against h is will?

Things like murder etc was around before scripture even was breathed into the air. Its very very new compared to The Dharma and new age compared to hindu scriptures. Its basically telling people what authors back when observed the world and lessons related to the observations.

Whats interesting is we wouldnt go "back" to using the first brain surgical methods to cure a condition. Half of us really like using our clocks as opposed to the suns gaze to determine the time we have our inteviews.

Yet, millions of people depend on the bible (and other scriptures) as if they were written yesterday and expect ourselves to understand thought processes thousands of years before our existence. Symbolism doesnt exclude this. Why would one want to live off the morals of someone else's death and suffering. People probably did then; politics. But today, we make it our morals???

My great aunt, before she died years ago, lived in the country with no electivity and any other modern applience. She felt she is living like christ by even changing her lifestyle.

I understand why people want to be saved. I dont understand why people die for their beliefs. As my friend says, "god is my life."
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
Everything that exists, exists as an expression of energy, being governed by forces from within it that we do not understand. And we humans cannot even detect all the different existential manifestations and expressions of this energy. So there could be energy phenomena that we are as yet completely unaware, that might resemble what could be called "spirit" energy. Perhaps coalesced and defined within a life form, but remaining extant after that life form has itself ceased and disintegrated.
I agree with your direction. Not sure about all the handles. I guess my internal language, while basically the same, is of a different dialect.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't know. It has never made sense to me. Maybe it's because I was raised to believe that no words were obscene. Intellectuals and the religious tend to disagree with me on that point.

The apostle Paul said not to speak the obscene, but what is obscene? Take the Greek word katabole, which means to lay or cast down as in laying down the seed. The same as the modern day so called F word. It's used in the Bible as in the "founding of the world" Luke 11:50 which refers to Adam and Eve's first offspring. Also with Sarah at Hebrews 11:11.

What is obscene about procreation?

Yeah. Its mostly dirogatory. Like the N word has its political issues. It was that, then negro, black, then african american. All of which are either derogatory or the last two totally incorrect (unless someone is from Africa and is an American Citizen).

I dont know the history of words, but I donr use curse words. I guess it really doesnt hurt anyone to use alternatives. Unless they are making a point using the words in its non offensive context or they use the words in everyday language, which I had a friend who did that, Id say to anyone use another term.

I dont see it a problem when used in context. But I dont understand why blurting is needed if the words are in other nice words.

Aka dont know.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I gotta say this. In the OP I used the term Syriac Pe****ta , which is an ancient version of the Hebrew scriptures.
I read it's translations made by Christians from the Greek or Hebrew to Syriac. There's some pretty cool information about it in wikipedia.

I don't get that. All of those words mean the same, so should we censure or censor all of them?
It's quite silly, but you can avoid it by placing something in between like Pes h i t ta.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Since the Bible teaches a resurrection this response will deal with the alleged contradictions with scriptures which say that death is final and have some brief comments upon some of the verses given to support resurrection as well.

The following scriptures are given to support the interpretation that death is final.

Joshua 23:14 simply states that Joshua was going to die, it says nothing about death being final.

Job 7:9 - There are two possible meanings when Job said this; one is that from the perspective of his contemporaries his death would be somewhat final in this lifetime, the other possibility is that he was pointing out that the resurrection was out of his control. It wasn't up to him, and only a possibility. One thing is sure, Job believed in the possibility of resurrection. (Job 14:13-15)

Job 14:10, 12 - It has already been established that Job believed in the resurrection, but verse 10 is important to note because there is some variation in translation. The Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad, as presented by the Biblia Hebraica, by Kittel, Kahle, Alt and Eissfeldt, Privilegierte Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, seventh to ninth ed., 1951-55, and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, reads "Where is he?" where the Septuagint, third and second cent. B.C.E., (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935) and Syriac Pe****ta, Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979 reads "he is no more." So where the KJV reads "he is no more" other translations like the Douay reads "where is he?" One thing to keep in mind when considering these verses of Job given by the SAB as possible contradictions regarding a resurrection is that Job, at the time, was doubting his being approved of by God and so may have wondered about his own possible resurrection, even though in the next few verses he expresses a belief in the possibility.

Job 20:7 - Here even the KJV asks Where is he? (see above)

Psalm 6:5 simply states that when we die, we are no longer conscious of anything. We can't do anything. King Hezekiah expressed a similar sentiment, in fact it is common throughout the Bible. (Ecclesiastes 9:5 / Isaiah 38:17-19 / Genesis 3:19 / Psalm 30:9; 88:10)

Psalm 31:17; 88:5; 115:17 - David refers to the wicked who are in contrast to the faithful, the faithful having the possibility of a resurrection to eternal life whereas the wicked do not.

Ecclesiastes 3:19 - This verse simply states that like animals, humans die. It doesn't say that it is final.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - The KJV says there is no reward during death, some translations use the word wages rather than reward. The verse is trying to convey the vanity of materialism. Sort of like the modern day expression "You can't take it with you." It doesn't imply that death is final in the sense of there not being a resurrection.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 - This verse is an extension of the verse above. The book is talking about the vanity of an ungodly life as temporal.

Isaiah 26:14 - This verse is a reference to the wicked, and is a specific prophecy regarding Babylon, the captors of Judah during that time and who later fell to the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C.E.

Isaiah 38:18 simply states that when we die, we are no longer conscious of anything. See Psalm 6:5 above.

The following scriptures are given to support the interpretation that death isn't final and there will be a resurrection from the dead. Though the Bible teaches the resurrection, I did want to comment on some of the scriptures given.

1 Kings 17:22 / 2 Kings 4:32-35; 13:21 / Luke 7:12-15 / John 11:39-44 all convey a temporary resurrection. All of the people raised from the dead in these verses died again sometime later. Those resurrected by Elijah, Elisha, Jesus and the apostles were, in part, a demonstration of the possibility of resurrection.

Daniel 12:1 / Matthew 25:46; 9:24-25 / Mark 5:39-42 / Luke 20:37 / John 5:28-29 / Acts 26:23 / 1 Corinthians 15:16, 52 / Revelation 20:12-13 all convey the idea of a general resurrection of the dead. Of the faithful to life everlasting or of the unrighteous to either life everlasting or eternal destruction. (Acts 24:15)

Isaiah 26:19 - Where the KJV says "my dead body" some translations read "a corpse of mine" from the Hebrew Eveleth. It is singular, but likely in a collective sense. The Septuagint reads "those in the memorial tombs" and the Vulgate reads "my killed ones."

Ezekiel 37:12 is more likely a figurative resurrection of the Jewish nation when 42,360 people of all tribes of Israel and some 7,500 non-Israelites seized their opportunity to repopulate Judah. (See Isaiah 66:14 / Revelation 11:11 / Ezra 1:1-4; 2:64-65)

Matthew 27:52-53 - Matthew was the only one to mention dead people emerging from their graves upon Jesus' death. It is assumed that these resurrected dead were walking around. The omission of the dead people emerging from the graves by the other writers does not, of course, mean anything. Matthew was the first gospel to be written. In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.

At Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, resurrection in Greek is anastasis and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas "bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same. The passage is saying that an earthquake caused burried corpses to be thrown up out of the ground and there were other people, who were alive, walking around who seen this happen. This is not so unusual as it may seem. It has been reported as having happened in modern history, in Ecuador in 1949 and again in El Tiempo, Bogota, Colombia, July 31, 1962 where 200 corpses were thrown out of their tombs by a violent earth tremor.

Luke 9:30 - Not a resurrection of Moses and Elijah. Jesus referred to the transfiguration as a vision. (Matthew 17:9) Some critics have called it a dream but Peter, James and John didn't likely have the same dream. It was foretold that a prophet like Moses and Elijah would be sent, and in this vision the "appearance" or representation of them signified this. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 / Acts 3:19-20 / Malachi 4:5-6 / Luke 1:17)

In your mentioning in the following books you made mention of the (Resurrection of the dead)

Daniel 12:1 / Matthew 25:46; 9:24-25 / Mark 5:39-42 / Luke 20:37 / John 5:28-29 / Acts 26:23 / 1 Corinthians 15:16, 52 / Revelation 20:12-13 all convey the idea of a general resurrection of the dead. Of the faithful to life everlasting or of the unrighteous to either life everlasting or eternal destruction. (Acts 24:15)

In your speaking about ( resurrection of the dead ) Who is the dead in reference to?
Who are the dead ?

Did you notice, in all of the books that you given, that you will find the resurrection of the dead.

But no Resurrection of the Righteous,
Those that are Faithful to God, There is no Resurrection.
Why is that ?
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Fawke no says Fawke the phoenix. Since we are about 14 billion years old I think fawkes is most correct in this.
Phoenix-artwork-from-Harry-Potter-and-the-Chamber-of-Secrets-Jim-Kay.jpg
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What the Fawke are you talkin' about? o_O
I had a Co-worker who was was an extremely. Vocal atheist. As he was going one one day about Harry Potter I mentioned that in 80 AD pope clement 1 wrote a sermon and it starts "it has been said there lives a creature in Egypt who lives 700 th 1400 years, its and is reborn."

I mentioned to the harsh atheist the earliest Christians equated their story to the phoenix! He got all blustery and Said they were totally different stories. I decided I didn't want to upset him anymore by mentioning his favourite author attended The church of Scotland as she wrote Harry Potter. He was struggling with the idea that fawkes was remotely associated to the evil empire (to him) , which today, is mostly composed of grandma's reading bronze age poetry story!!!! Those evil granny's...
 
Top