DEBATE: The Dead Are Conscious in the Intermediate State Between Death & Resurrection

0:05 [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

1:11 Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]

2:01 Welcome to Trinity Radio. I'm Braxton Hunter and today we are having a debate and we have this is a first I think in Trinity radio history. We're having a twoon two debate and the topic of this debate is very interesting if you're interested in theology and uh it's going to be very interesting for another reason I'll get to in just a moment based on a shared view that these men have. The the proposition for the debate is dece deceased human beings are conscious from death to resurrection. So it's about the intermediate state. What happens between death and resurrection? Are you conscious and in some ethereal place? Are you in uh some state where it seems uh physical and is not? Is there

2:49 no conscious experience taking place at all? This is an interesting question that theologians have wrestled with. And today we're going to hammer it all out. And in fact, every man that is speaking today happens to be I don't know that we tried to do this. It just turns out that they all happen to affirm conditional immortality, which is has to do with the nature of judgment and what happens uh how do you think about hell and all those sorts of things. But I'm very excited to introduce these debaters to you today. I'll go ahead and bring them on the screen. To uh to the right of me on the screen is Chris Day. People that watch the show will be familiar with Chris Day. Then uh his debate partner is going to be uh James Harding, who is kind of below him there. And then the negative is uh or sorry, the affirmative

3:36 for the proposition is going to be Stephen Hafley and Nathan Boseman. They've all agreed to come on to the channel today and talk about this interesting issue. And I want you to appreciate them because they've all put in a lot of just their own study throughout a lifetime of interest in these things. But specifically for this video, they've put a lot of effort in. So think about that and and pray for them perhaps where you are that God will give them the clear uh thoughts and and crisp thinking that brings all those things to mind. Um, I'm going to give them just each without being timed or anything before we jump in a moment just to say a few things uh about themselves or to to point to some resource that might represent them out there on the internet. So Chris, I'll start with you and then uh we can just go with you and then your partner and then we can pick

4:21 up with Stephen and then go to Nathan. So Chris, tell us. Well, first of all, uh let me thank you Braxton for having us on. It's a real pleasure and honor every time I get to be on Trinity Radio. uh don't ever hesitate to reach out to invite me on because I'll leap at every opportunity. And also um it's a real honor and privilege to be able to debate uh Stephen and Nathan. Um it is exciting for me that we have a shared bond in being all a minority view of hell. Um I think that's going to already have some um cause some camaraderie between us which is going to make this a very friendly brotherly debate even though we're going to be rigorous and and hold each other's feet to the fire. So thank you guys. I'm really looking forward to it. And then lastly, I just want to say, you know, I've really um grown uh to to be close friends with and to very highly

5:07 admire and respect my teammate James. And so, it's a real honor and privilege to be able to be a part of what I think might be his first debate. Isn't that right, James? Uh so, um uh yeah, just wanted to say it's privilege and honor. As far as where people can find me online, um I don't most people know me for rethinking hell, but this topic doesn't have to do with that. Um, where I do touch on this topic is on my personal YouTube channel, The Apologetics, uh, which I'm sure Braxton will include a show a link to in the show notes. So, if people want to find out what I have to say about this topic or anything else, they can go there or go to my website chrisdate.info. Thank you guys. James, yeah, I mean, there's not really much I want to say about myself. I'm 25, like Chris said. Uh, it's my first debate. I'm excited to be here. Thank you for having me on the channel. And by

5:52 the way, I've been meaning to tell you, Braxton, for a while, your background is awesome. Thank you. Yeah, we moved floors a while ago uh to a different part of the building that we're in, and instead of recreating my old set, it had this beautiful uh bookcase, and I thought we're just going with that, you know. Looks great. Yeah, thanks. Um so, yeah, 25 First Debate. Um I have a small YouTube channel with like 110 subscribers or so, so very tiny. uh by the name of study is key. Uh so if any anyone if anybody's interested you can go check that out and see uh what I have on there. Um other than that I since I believe January January 1st 2024 or so

6:38 have been part of the rethinking hell with Chris uh rethinking hell team with Chris and for that I'm very um thankful and I've learned a lot from Chris and so I'm very honored to be debating along alongside him today. Right on, Stephen. All right. My name is Stephen Hafley. Um, I published a book on this topic. Uh it was published back in uh December 2024 and um yeah, I I'm I love this topic. It's it's it's great. And then uh the the book is titled Until Death Be Defeated. It's available on Amazon. And then I also have a a you channel called Curious Kyros. That's K a OS. Um, it's a esquetology focused channel. I need to get some more videos made, but uh, I'll

7:23 get around to it. Right on, Nathan. Hey everyone, my name is Nathan. I run a YouTube channel called The Epitomy Ministries. And essentially what I do there is I defend the reliability of the Gospels and the historicity of the resurrection. That's like my bread and butter. But I am excited to uh, come on here and uh, debate my brothers here. I have been a fan of Braxton and Chris Date for a while. So, I'm honored to be on this channel because it's like, whoa, I'm like uh joined on these guys that I personally watch myself. I really encourage you guys to keep watching their content. And then Chris State over at Rethinking Hell and I've seen James on a recent stream there. So, this is really cool. And then Steve and I have uh I think gotten close over the last uh you know, few weeks as we've been preparing for this debate. So, a lot of

8:10 fun stuff. I I think this is going to be a brotherly and kind debate. And um I'm looking forward to that. And I think that hopefully this will serve as an example of brothers disagreeing, but still recognizing at the end of the day that we can eat at the Lord's table at the end of it. So, it's good. All right. Well, I appreciate that, guys. Now, we're not going to spend much more time. We're going to jump right into it, but just to let everyone know, I feel like well-informed troops have better morale. So, if you're out there watching, let me tell you what you can look forward to. We're going to have 15minute opening statements from each team. Then we're going to have seven and a half minute rebuttals from each team. Then we're going to have 20 minutes a piece cross-examinations by the other team. Then we're going to have five minute closings and there will be a Q&A time. So as uh as we get into that crossex,

8:55 you might start thinking about what questions you have. Um we will privilege super chats. So I appreciate that and uh it's going to be a fun night. But with that, let's go ahead and move it to uh the affirmative. And I hope that you guys are just about ready. We'll go ahead and get the timer ready to start. Who's who who's going to be speaking here for this first portion? Affirmative team. So I'll be reading the opening statement and then uh Steve will be sharing the PowerPoint. Excellent. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and remove the other team there and whenever you are ready with your first words, I'll start the timer. Perfect. All right. First, we want to take a

9:41 moment to thank Braxton and Trinity Radio for hosting this important discussion and also Chris and James for agreeing to have this debate with us. Our prayer is that the discussion is fruitful and that the audience will walk away with greater clarity about what happens when we die physically. Steve and I will argue in this debate that believers and unbelievers consciously await the resurrection that occurs when Christ returns in Shaol after death. Not only will we show that the biblical data supports this conclusion, but we will also demonstrate that the extra biblical data backs our interpretation. Let's begin with the extra biblical data. The reason we want to begin here is because when we engage in exogesis, it's imperative that we first discuss the context to bolster and inform our understanding of what the text itself is saying. When we do so, what becomes abundantly clear very quickly is that the average ancient Israelite did not believe in an unconscious afterlife, but

10:28 a conscious one. We are aware that the Sadducees disagree, but common practice and teachings in ancient Israel agree with our position. Jesus also corrects the Sadducees regarding their view of the intermediate state and the resurrection of the dead in Mark 12, saying that they are quote badly mistaken. We will examine two lines of evidence to demonstrate that our position was the common belief in ancient Israel, archaeology, and literary works at the time. Scholars suggest that commands in the Old Testament regarding necromancy reflects a need to prohibit such a practice. Aliatipu, senior lecturer at the University of Helinsky says, quote, "The inclusion of the prohibition against necromancy in the law probably reflects the fact that it was actually practiced." End quote. She also notes that ancient Israel would make sacrifices for the dead, which quote may be simply for providing sustenance for

11:13 the deceased. Finally, we look at the archaeological record. Ancient Israel would put objects of use from this world within the tombs of the dead. Dr. Michael Heheiser notes, quote, "Any culture that buries anyone with things of use in this life does so because it's expected they will be using those things in the afterlife." If the ancient Israelites believe there was no consciousness in the afterlife, these commands and practices would be completely incomprehensible. The ability to be communicated with, to receive sustenance, and to use objects in the afterlife requires and presupposes consciousness. And what happens when we analyze the literary evidence? The case gets even stronger in our favor. Beginning with first Enoch chapter 22 which was a highly influential text in the second temple period to summarize an angel describes Enoch that there rather

11:59 describes to Enoch that there are gathering places where the spirits of the souls of the dead are gathered as they await the judgment at the end of the world. For the sake of time we'll only provide one more example. Um and in fourth Ezras which we'll summarize so we don't have to quote a page of text here. Ezra is speaking to Uriel and the angel describes that the fate of the dead it what it is like for the wicked and he says they will quote immediately wander about in torments ever grieving and sad in seven ways. Those seven ways includes their regret of not loving the Lord and being unable to repent as well as seeing the reward that they are missing out on from the righteous. On the contrary, for the righteous, Uriel tells Enoch that quote, "They shall have rest in seven orders, and their rest includes seeing the great joy of the one who receives them, the recognition of victory over evil, being guarded by angels, and

12:46 looking forward to their future inheritance." Whether it's wandering about in torment, seeing God with great joy, or awaiting inheritance. All of these actions again require and presuppose consciousness. The extra biblical data can be further bolstered by the writings of the early church fathers since they too held to a conscious afterlife. Justin Martyr, for example, said, quote, "The souls of the godly remain in a better place while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse place, waiting for the time of judgment." End quote. Erenaeus also says, quote, "It's it is clear that the souls of his disciples also upon whose account the Lord underwent these things will go away into the invisible place allotted for them are to them by God and they will remain there until the resurrection awaiting that event." So no matter where we look, prior to Christ at the time of Christ and shortly after, the consistent belief of the Jews and

13:33 Christians has been in a conscious afterlife where souls await the final judgment in Sha. When this is combined with our evidence regarding commands against necromancy, literary works that comment on the afterlife, sacrifices for the dead, anderary practices in the archaeological record, we see that the constant belief in is in conscious uh consciousness after bodily death. What I'd like our opponents to explain tonight is this. How is it that the Bible could possibly teach an unconscious intermediate state, but no one got the memo? And better yet, why didn't any of the New Testament authors correct the record? Why did they on the other hand affirm what we have already laid out as we're about to demonstrate when we look at the biblical texts themselves? As mentioned earlier when engaging in exugesus the context of these texts matter and the Bible is speaking to people who believed in a conscious afterlife. Let's find out why

14:19 by reading the biblical accounts themselves. According to the first century Jewish historian Favius Josephus, the Pharisees believed everyone goes to the heart of the earth sh or hades when they die where they consciously await the resurrection. Quote, "The Pharisees believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments. The Pharisees taught the common people. So this would have likely been the dominant view among Israelites, including the disciples prior to Jesus's teachings. This is pertinent information because an integral part of exes Jesus is having a good understanding of the beliefs of the writers and their intended audience. If the Pharisees were wrong, we should expect at least some effort to correct that understanding of the intermediate state by Jesus or the apostles. Instead, everything they taught and wrote was not only consistent with the pheriseical view of the intermediate state, but we believe they

15:04 outright taught it. We believe it's best to understand doctrine through the lens of Jesus's teachings whenever we have the opportunity to do so. And we do not believe anyone has ascended to heaven other than Jesus because he directly told his disciples they will not join him or inherit the kingdom he is preparing for them until he returns and his angels for everyone to judge. This is in Matthew 25 and John 14. If Jesus's disciples won't in uh won't even inherit the kingdom he is preparing for them in in heaven until he comes to judge everyone, then it's unreasonable to believe anyone else will either. We believe that Jesus accurately described what the intermediate state is like in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. And it's where the dead are awaiting uh to be resurrected by him on the last day. The Pharisees were Jesus's audience when he told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. and they understood the

15:50 intermediate state to be exactly the way Jesus described it. Since it was their perception of reality, they would have needed to be corrected if they were wrong. If the framework for the parable was based on a false doctrine, as our opponents must assert, that would entail Jesus not only failed to correct their false doctrine, but also unwittingly perpetuated it by means of the parable. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not the only place that Jesus lets us know with the that the intermediate state is consciously experienced within Shaol. In Matthew 12:39-4, Jesus told the Pharisees he would give them the sign of Jonah by being in the heart of the earth for 3 days and three nights. There's no reason why they would have believed Jesus meant anything other than the realm of the dead because that was their belief and Jesus never corrected it. Then he told the thief that was crucified next to him that they would be in paradise the very same day. For both

16:35 of these statements to be true, this requires that paradise is in the heart of the earth and for Jesus to not be anywhere other than that realm of the dead while he was dead. The Sadducees differed from the Pharisees in regard to the intermediate state. Like our opponents, they rejected the belief of an of an immaterial soul. Thankfully, our opponents do affirm the resurrection while the Sadducees did not. Interestingly enough, Jesus rebuked them for not understanding scripture or the power of God when it comes to the resurrection. And he said they were badly mistaken in regard to the current state of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Mark 12. We can know for certain that Jesus was referring to the curtain state of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because he was referring to uh to what God had Moses in the past uh in regard to him presently being their God despite uh them being dead. Jesus plainly stated that God is

17:22 not the God of the dead, but of the living. For God to currently be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that requires them to be alive in some sense. If their disembodied souls are alive in paradise, as the Pharisees believed, then this isn't a problem. The fact that Jesus said this to the Sadducees in regard to their lack of understanding of the scriptures and God's power when it comes to the dead, it is unreasonable to conclude Jesus was in agreement with them on their view of the current state of the deceased saints. In order for our opponents to not be also guilty of misunderstanding the scriptures, they will need to demonstrate that Jesus either affirmed their view or that he corrected the Pharisees on their view. If they can't do that, then to borrow from Jesus's words, they are quote badly mistaken. Paul was formerly a Pharisee, a Pharisee, and everything he taught about the intermediate state aligns with the way Jesus described to the Pharisees in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus

18:09 and to the thief who was crucified next to him. In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul described someone being carried away to the third heaven or paradise. Since Jesus already revealed paradise is in the heart of the earth, this requires the third heaven is synonymous with paradise. Paul said he was unsure if that man was in the body or out of the body while he was in paradise. This indicates that Paul affirmed the soul does not require the body to be conscious and that the man wasn't taken up to heaven. As a Pharisee, Paul was well aware that the flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and that we won't inherit the kingdom until after judgment day. This entails that Paul knew it was impossible for someone's sinful physical body to enter into God's perfectly holy domain and that the soul doesn't require being in the body to experience consciousness. Peter also affirmed Jesus accurately described what the intermediate state will be like for the ungodly by

18:54 comparing the way the ungodly are being punished to the way some fallen angels are being punished. In 2 Peter 2:4 it says, "For if God does not spare angels when they had sinned and cast them into tartarus and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the day of judgment." And in 2 Peter 2:9 it says, "Then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment." Verse four is where Peter begins his thought and verse 9 is where it's completed. His entire point was to assure that his to his audience that God's salvation of the righteous is as certain as the ungodly are currently being punished in Hades like the fallen angels. To follow Peter's line of reasoning, to be certain that the ungodly are currently being punished in Hades until judgment day is to be uncertain that God will bring salvation to the righteous on judgment day. In

19:40 other words, Peter very strongly believed souls remain conscious after death. Peter went on to describe what punishment is like for the ungodly in verse 17. Quote, "The ungodly are waterless springs and mist driven by a storm. For them, the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved." Jude al uh uses the exact same description when he also compared the way angels are currently being punished as they await judgment day to the way the ungodly are currently being punished. Jude 6 says, "And the angels who did not stay within the their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept an eternal change under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day." And in Jude 13, it says, "The ungodly are wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame, wandering stars for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever." In the Greek, forever is iceona, which can

20:28 be translated as unto the age. Throughout the New Testament, forever is typically referring to the end of this age. If we allow Jesus to be our dictionary, he taught that everyone will be gathered to him by his angels to be judged at the end of the age. So to say the ungodly will be punished by being kept or reserved in gloomy darkness, quote, unto the age, that's the same thing as saying that that is their punishment until judgment day. Both Peter and Jude reference Enoch throughout their letters. It's not a coincidence that Enoch uses some of the exact same description regarding both the fallen angels and the ungodly being punished in the same place, quote, forever, which means to their day of judgment. What I'd love for Chris and James to explain tonight is this. Why are the New Testament authors employing imagery from the book of Enoch during didactic teachings on the afterlife

21:13 without correcting the view if they believed in an unconscious afterlife? We believe this would entail that the New Testament authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit perpetuated a false doctrine. Our case, however, becomes even more devastating in our estimation when we examine modern empirical data for a continued state of consciousness after death, namely in deathbed experiences and near-death experiences or death bed encounters. We'll examine one case of each to conclude our case. Melvin Morse, he's a pediatrician. and he published the case of a 9-year-old girl named Katie in the American Journal of Diseases of Children. In this case, Katie was found floating face down in her swimming pool. She had no measurable brain activity. She didn't have a heartbeat for 20 minutes, and she was hooked up to an artificial lung to keep her breathing. She miraculously

21:59 recovered in just 3 days with an amazing statement, quote, I met Jesus and the Heavenly Father. End quote. One of the nights while she was comeomaosse, she claims that she followed her family home in a disembodied experience. She was able to give specific details about what she observed, what her father was reading, how her brother was playing, and what her mother made for dinner. She could even describe the clothes they were wearing accurately. She was also able to describe the prior room that she was being held in with considerable detail, everything checked out. That's important. For our deathbed encounter, we're going to look at a a case from William Barrett. He reports about a woman named Doris. She had a vision in the corner of her room in a very specific area where she saw her long deceased father and she wasn't shocked

22:45 about that because he had been dead for a while. And so basically in the corner of the room there was this vision and there were angels and her father was there. But then there was a surprise. She also saw her sister in the vision. What Doris didn't know because her family hadn't told her due to her health condition was that her sister had passed away 3 weeks earlier. So think about that. You've got uh her sister showing up in a vision and she did not know that she was dead. How can this be explained if they are unconscious in the afterlife? Our conclusion from everything we have examined is clear. Consciousness persists in the afterlife. Most importantly, the teachings of scripture perfectly align with our view. And when this is supplemented with the archaeological, literary and empirical evidence, this gives us substantial cumulative weight in support of this

23:31 proposition. Our claim is very simple. Our exogesis our exugesus should align with the context of the time period. What the didactic teachings are saying and our modern empirical observations as well. For our opponents to win the debate tonight, they will need to give an account for all four lines of evidence that we have provided. We predict that they will be able uh they will be unable to do so. Thank you for your intention and we concede the rest of our time. There's messing up the flow of the screen, but uh excellent guys. All right, that was great. Ended with a little time left on the clock now. I'll pass it over. I think I'm starting with

24:16 uh Chris. Is that right? Starting with Chris. And we will go ahead and put that on the screen now. You with your first words. I'll start the timer. Our debate thesis today is deceased human beings are conscious from death to resurrection. And as the negative in this debate, all my teammate James and I are arguing is that deceased human beings are not conscious from death to resurrection. Nothing beyond that. Now, our case is going to be exclusively exogetical. But first, I want you to consider how much more simply our view harmonizes with important biblical themes. More simply, that is than our opponent's position. So, take the theme of judgment for example. In scripture, punishment follows a just judgment wherein someone is found guilty. But in our opponent's view, it seems that the

25:03 lost who go into Hades dead begin their punishment thousands of years in some cases before the judgment. Or take the matter of justice. Justice in scripture is supposed to be blind. You're not God doesn't show favoritism to some people over others. But in our opponent's view, it seems as if ancients who die and go to Hades lost will suffer a lot longer there than the righteous, the saved who die and go to Hades. Or take the theme of resurrection. Scripture seems to emphasize over and over again how there's no hope for any life after uh death if there's not a resurrection. And that's consistent with our view and it's not very consistent with our opponent's view. Um this isn't uh our argument though. Um I'm going to turn to that now, our actual case. But I do hope those things you'll keep in mind as we get into our texts. I begin with Ecclesiastes 9 in which the author says

25:48 it's the same for all the righteous and the wicked. They go to the dead. A living dog is better than a dead lion. And the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. There's no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Shaol to which you are going. Few important observations here. First of all, the author's language about uh the the fate he's talking about is universal for all mankind, righteous and unrighteous alike. Secondly, it's clearly talking about physical life and death. There's no such thing as a spiritually living dog or a spiritually dead lion. And the spiritually living certainly don't know that they will spiritually die. Quite the contrary. Rather, the author is clearly talking about ordinary physical death here. And with those things in mind, the author's conclusion is inescapable. There's a total lack of mental activity in death. They are unconscious. As the respected

26:34 evangelical Old Testament scholar Treer Longman puts it in his commentary on this passage, the living have a relative advantage over the dead consciousness. Death brings everything to a stop. Now, in his book, our opponent Steve objects to this reading on the grounds that if it were literally true that the dead have no more reward and forever have no more share in all that's done under the sun, then that would mean there couldn't be a resurrection. But this objection overlooks some key points about this text. Firstly, the gnomic gnom I the gnomic aspect of the present tense expresses general timeless truths like the sun rises in the east. If a thousand years from now, God supernaturally caused the sun to rise in the north as some kind of miracle, that wouldn't uh mean that this general timeless truth was in fact false. It would just mean

27:19 that there was an exception to the rule. And as for the word forever in Hebrew, om frequently means something like up to the prover the prover proverbial horizon as far as the eye can see uh without commenting on what might happen after that. And I've got some texts on the screen um wherein the word is used in that way. So what that means is the author is here talking about the indefinite or foreseeable future. It's not meant absolutely to rule out anything into eternity. And so therefore actually our plain straightforward reading of this text does in fact leave room for resurrection beyond the proverbial horizon. And as such our opponent's objections to this reading fail under scrutiny. Let's turn now to 1 Corinthians 15 wherein Paul says that if the dead are not raised then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have

28:06 perished and we have hope in this life only. So let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. Few observations about this text. Firstly um Paul says that if the dead aren't raised then our hope is in this life only. That means there is no other life beyond death apart from resurrection. That seems to be a challenge to our opponent's view. Moreover, scholars recognize that the expression, "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die," is one of several indications that Paul is engaging with Epicurionism here. And famously, Epicurans believe that consciousness ends with death. Um, so what Paul is saying is that if the dead are not raised, then the afterlife is that which the Epicurans think it is. Or as the respected New Testament scholar Craig Keenir puts it on his commentary in this

28:52 p on this passage, if there is no resurrection, the Epicurian denial of an afterlife also follows. Now, the astute audience member will observe that Kenir goes on to say that Paul could believe in the resurrection and an intermediate existence for the soul. And indeed, Kener thinks Paul does, but that makes poor sense of the actual text here for a couple of reasons. First of all, Paul also says that if the dead are not raised, then people it makes no sense for people to be baptized on their behalf. And Paul is here repeating a sentiment that was known in his day expressed in Second Mcabes 12 where dead or where living Jewish soldiers pray that God would forgive their dead compatriots for their sin. And the author of second Makabes says it makes no sense to pray for the dead to be forgiven of their sin if they won't be

29:38 raised. Um, in other words, there's there's no way for your prayers to have any effect on the dead uh unless they're going to be raised thereafter. Um, and so what we see here in both Paul and second Corinthians or second Mcabes, sorry, is that the dead can't benefit from prayer unless they're going to be raised. But of course, if the dead are conscious, they could benefit from prayer if it's if God so wishes. God could choose in response to prayer to show mercy to the dead if they're conscious and lighten their uh punishment, let's say, in Hades or whatever. Uh so this this statement about it making only it only makes sense to pray for the dead really only makes sense in my view and my my teammates's view and not so much in our opponent's view. But there's more. Paul also says that implies that he gains nothing from

30:25 righteous living like dying a martyr's death if there's no resurrection and so might as well just eat and drink for tomorrow we die. This suggests that Paul thinks there's no possibility of proportionate punishment in death. Because if the dead are conscious, there would be the possibility that if he that if Paul lives more righteously, he will have a less uh severe punishment in Hades than he would if he were to live lentiously. But if the dead are not conscious, then it wouldn't matter and will remain that way forever because there's no resurrection, then it would make sense that there's no possibility of proportionate punishment in death. um that there would be no way for a dead person to be punished more or less than anybody else if they're unconscious and will remain that way forever. Uh so the

31:12 fact that Paul seems to think there's no possibility of proportionate punishment in death um that strongly suggests the the truthfulness of my teammates in my view and seems to challenge the view of uh our opponents. Uh so those are the two texts that I wanted to go through. I'm going to hand things over now to my friend and teammate James for the remainder of our opening. All right. So the next text that we have for you guys is Psalm 6:es 4 to5 which says quote turn O Lord deliver my life save me for the sake of your steadfast love for in death there is no remembrance of you in sha who will give you praise. Now uh David explicitly rests

31:59 his appeal to God to deliver his life on the fact that in death there is no remembrance of God and that in sha no one gives God praise. In other words, he's saying, "God, isn't it more desirable for me to be alive and able to remember and praise you than for me to be dead and unable to do either of the two?" Now, here's a quote from our opponent Steven's book in which he says something that he and Nathan could potentially latch on to as an escape patch of sorts since the logic and language of Psalm 64:5 is so straightforward. He writes, quote, "In the old covenant, sha undeniably refers to the body going to the grave sometimes, but it primarily refers to where a person's soul goes." End quote. Now, the objection might go something like this. Sure, no one praises God in shaol, but sha here merely refers to the grave, as is sometimes the case. Only the bodies in view here, not the whole

32:45 person. Now, the problem with that objection, if he were to raise it, is that it would actually fail to stand up to Steven's own words just prior to the quote I read. Steven argues that language concerning the depth of Shaol makes it difficult to harmonize the belief that Shaol only refers to the body being buried in a grave just beneath the surface. Now, how's that problematic in the case of Psalm 64:5? Well, consider Psalm 86:13, which appears to be a direct fulfillment of the plea in Psalm 64-5. Both passages speak of delivering David's nephesh. Both highlight God's steadfast love and both mention Shaol. In the former, David wants to be delivered from Shaol. And in the latter, he says that God has delivered him from Shaol. So given the interextual connections here, it makes good sense to use Psalm 86:13 as a lens through which

33:31 we can better interpret Psalm 64-5. Now, having said that, notice the phrasing in Psalm 86:13. It speaks of the depths of Shaol. And again, as we just read from Steven, language about the depth of shaol makes it difficult to suppose that shaol merely refers to the grave where bodies go. So in light of Psalm 86:13 and Steven's book, it makes best sense to understand in Psalm 64:5 as the place where souls go, as is primarily the case in the Old Testament according to Steven. So where souls go, no one gives God praise. The next text is very similar. Psalm 88:es 3-6 and 10 to 12 says, quote, "My life draws near to Shaol. I am counted among those who go down to the pit. You have put me in the depths of the pit, in the regions dark and deep. Do you work wonders for the dead?

34:16 Do the uh do the departed rise up to praise you? Is your steadfast love declared in the grave or your faithfulness in Abdon? Are your wonders known in darkness or in the darkness or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? The first thing I want to point out is how exhaustive the psalmist is being in his use of terms for the realm of the dead. He speaks of Shol, the pit re, the regions dark and deep, the grave, Abdon, the darkness, and the land of forgetfulness. This, I think, makes the second thing I want to point out virtually undeniable. Namely, that it makes no sense to take what he says as anything other than a holistic picture of what the dead experience. The whole person, body and soul, ceases to praise or know God. Now for context, this next text which is again very similar is part of a poem written by Hezekiah after God healed him

35:01 from his terminal illness. Uh it says quote, "Your love has delivered me from the pit of destruction. For she cannot thank you. Death cannot praise you. Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness. The living only the living can thank you as I do today. A father will make your faithfulness known to children." Now let me begin by raising an objection against our reading of this text from the wellrespected Jameson Faucet and Brown commentary on the whole Bible. Jameson Faucet and Brown write quote Hezekiah believed in a world of disembodied spirits incapable of declaring the praises of God before men for it is as regards this world an unseen land of stillness. The living alone can praise God on earth in reference to which only he is speaking.

35:47 Now here's why the objection misses the mark. It suffers from correctly identifying a symptom of going down to sha, namely that the dead can no longer make God's faithfulness known to the living while failing to recognize the underlying condition, namely that the dead cannot thank or praise God. Period. The objection relies on unwarrantedly imposing qualifiers like before men or on earth onto the text to restrict the scope of the cannot statements to the land of the living. Now, even if I don't consider it scripture, Sarak gives a window into Jewish belief during the intertestamental period. And the logic very much echoes the three texts we've just looked at. And I also just wanted something for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to be able to chew on since they consider it scripture. It says, quote, "Who will sing praises to the most high in Hades in place of the

36:33 living who give thanks? From the dead, as from one who does not exist, thanksgiving has ceased. Those who are alive and well sing the Lord's praises." Now, some try to wiggle out of the implication of this text by suggesting that the living are believers in paradise. But that's obviously false because the text contrasts the living with those in Hades, which the Old Testament makes clear is the abode uh is the abode of deceased believers and unbelievers alike. So, if the term the living here were referring to disembodied believers, it wouldn't be the case that they would be contrasted with those in Hades. They would simply be those in Hades. And if it's still not clear enough that the living aren't disembodied believers, three chapters earlier, the living, still contrasted with those in Hades, are people who quote become old like a garment. Something we wouldn't say of disembodied

37:18 believers in paradise. It's no wonder that Erman's commentary says that Sarak did not believe in an afterlife and that Robert Henry Charles says that the thought is that those who go down to Hades are cut off from communion with God. Now the na the last text is Psalm 115:es 4 to8 and 17. It says, quote, "Their idols have mouths but do not speak, eyes but do not see. They have ears but do not hear, noses but do not smell. They have hands but do not feel, feet but do not walk. And they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them, so do all who trust in them. The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence." First point I want to raise is that when the text says that those who make or trust in idols become like them, there's no guesswork necessary to figure out what that means. they become like

38:04 them in that they no longer speak or see or hear or smell or feel or walk or make a sound. The second point is that the text says that none who go down into silence praise the Lord and into silence according to Psalm 94:17 designates what the righteous go down into as well. And in fact, Stephen even grants as much in his book, but fails to see where the logic of that inescapably leads. So to summarize the passage, let me quote what Keel and Ditzich have to say about it in their highly rated commentary on the Old Testament. They write, quote, "Worshippers of false gods become like to their idols, that is to say, deprived of their consciousness. The Old Testament knows nothing of a heavenly ecclesia that praises God without intermission, consisting of the spirits of all men who die in the faith." And with that, I

38:53 yield. We are back. Okay. And now that was excellent. Both both of you timed that really well. We'll go into the rounds of rebuttals now. And I think we said we're going to start with u with the affirmative. And so Stephen, I think you're going to handle most of that. And so uh let's see. Is this is this the the PowerPoint that I need? Whoops. Oh, let's see here. Uh I'm trying to get to uh the the page I need here. Um, yeah, I'm going to start with uh

39:38 Ecclesia Ecclesiastes 9:5. Okay. See here. Perfect. All right. And again with your first words, Stephen. Okay. So, as we expected, our our opponents, they they mainly start within the Old Testament within uh poetry poetry and wisdom literature to then interpret what Jesus and the apostles taught. That that is a a backwards hermeneutics. Um so um you know we we don't correct Jesus. We don't correct the apostles through our interpretations of of the Old

40:25 Testament and and especially poetry and wisdom literature. Uh instead what we do is we uh what we do is the same thing um you know what they do in u with conditional immortality. We look at what Jesus said and then we go back to the Old Testament and where what he referenced and we use how Jesus used it and how the the context of the Old Testament to to then understand what is being taught. Like we don't we don't to get the the idea of um conditional immortality. We don't start with the Old Testament and then or we don't start with the Old Yeah. We don't start with the Old Testament and then when Jesus says something that seems to contradict it, we like, well, he said this, but what he meant is this. So, so what we do

41:13 a good hermeneutic is to to get our affirmations from Jesus and the apostles and then go back and uh understand the Old Testament through what they taught. So in in Ecclesiastes 9:5, this verse is in the context of the teacher speaking. So there there are two characters in Ecclesiastes. You have the narrator and and the teacher. And so this is very relevant because the teacher he's speaking from um he's essentially going over his life and and and um explaining like how he what he experienced in this world and how a part if there's no resurrection then it's all vain. It's all it's all um fleeting. And

42:02 uh so then the Ecclesiastes ends with the narrator explaining that there will be a resurrection. And and so that's that's the ultimate thing that we're looking for. And I think both sides of the de debate um understand that that the intermediate state is never the focus because um ultimately it it's always pointing towards the resurrection. Okay. So um so if there is no resurrection uh he okay he doesn't deny the resurre Okay okay I'm sorry um okay so the teacher was contrasting the righteous with the unrighteous in the same way Jesus did in John 5:25 and Peter Peter did in 1 Peter 4:6 by referring to the righteous as living and

42:48 the unrighteous as dead. So this is a common theme throughout the Bible where where even uh among us in the living th those who are in the faith are are are counted as alive and those who are outside of the faith are counted as dead. So we were dead in our trespasses like we we weren't physically dead. Like uh our our opponents don't like the idea of a spirit being spiritually dead, but it's it's this idea of being spiritually separated from God. God is life. And if you're not joined in God through faith, then you you're separated from life. So you're dead in your trespasses. Uh if our opponents disagree with this interpretation, they must must believe Jesus preached to the physically dead in John 5 because he said he preached to the dead and that Peter was also

43:33 referring to Jesus preaching to those who are physically dead because Peter said uh talked about this is why the dead was preached or or why the gospel was preached to the dead. If the physically dead are unconscious, this would have been as useless as preaching in a cemetery with no living persons around with the with the hopes that the corpses will repent and believe the gospel. If our opponents believe Jesus was preaching to the physically dead and they were able to hear him, then they might as well concede the debate. For those who have faith in the living God, they have no reason to fear death. So, so the righteous know they will die, but they they also know they'll continue to be present with the Lord as David uh taught in Psalm 16:10-11 and 139:7 to8. Um, and Paul taught in 1 Corinthians

44:20 5'8, 1 Thessalonians 5:10, and Philippians 1:23. Thankfully, Jesus has freed us from being slaves to sin, and we no longer have to fear death because and as that's told in Hebrews 2:14-15. Uh the Bible repeatedly describes the the unrighteous as not knowing anything even while they are alive. Um and that's in Psalm 14:4 of Proverbs 17 9:13-18 um 1 Corinthians 13:2. So this is for uh Psalm 14:4 says uh have they no knowledge all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord. So that verse is not referring to people who are unconscious.

45:07 And so the idea that our our opponents bring to the text in in uh Ecclesiastes 9:5 is this. Oh, it says they have no knowledge, therefore they're unconscious. Well, you know, uh, Psalm 14:4 is referring to the to conscious people, and so are the other verses I I I I listed there. And so, it it it's not understanding the the way the the Bible repeatedly describes the ungodly. They're repeatedly described as as being dead while they're alive. You It's just it's a um it's a a distinction of the ungodly. Was that I think an idiom. Yeah. Yeah. And so is uh them having no knowledge.

45:53 Um okay. So and then in 1 Corinthians 15:32, Paul referenced Ecclesiastes 9:7 and didn't describe the un unrighteous as being asleep and having no knowledge of God. In verse 34, uh this is Paul directly affirming that the passage is referring to the unrighteous. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 is not describing both the righteous and the unrighteous as being unconscious after they die. Now going back to the context um like early on in the chap chapter nine when it talks about uh uh the same fate uh comes to both that that is universal. But as it goes on through the text, it it shifts from being from talking about physical life to to spiritual life

46:39 because the the way it describes those who are alive um in this life because we suffer and all of us are um you know we have sinned. We've all fallen short of the glory of God and describes those in this life as as being wicked and everything like that. And um and so if if if it's this universal idea of being a just it's just simply being physically alive. Um then it's saying that those who uh are joined to life have hope. It's like well Ecclesiast he he just got done in saying in the previous verse how you know wicked we all are. Um, so there there has to be some some kind of transition there to for there to be cohesion with the text and cohesion with what with

47:25 what Jesus and the apostles taught because that that's always our goal is is like how does this conform to what Jesus taught? Like we're we don't we don't conform Jesus's teachings to our interpretations of Ecclesiastes 9:5. We conform our interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:5 to what Jesus taught. And so with uh Psalm 65, let's see here. Uh the context of of verse 5 is King David was describing we're out of time, Stephen. So maybe finish this thought in the next 10 seconds or so. Yeah. Like it's um so King David was he was writing from a position of being under God's wrath. And so a person under uh under God's wrath is going to go to

48:12 the bad part of shiel. Um so I I was I'm agreement with them that it's not talking about his physical body. It was talking about his soul. Um but then the the psalm ends with King David praising God for hearing his prayer and the means by which God's wrath was coming by by his enemies. uh their his enemies turned away and so God spared his life, heard his prayer and uh he did not end up in the bad part of Shaol. All right, thank you for that. And uh with at this point, we'll go back to you guys, Chris and James, and I'll begin the timer when you start speaking. Okay. So, I'm going to go

48:57 first. Um, man, I don't type nearly fast enough to be able to take as many notes as I'd like. Uh, but I also have three minutes and a half, so I'll just go. Um, so I forgive me if I'm wrong. I I believe that I heard Nathan make the argument that um if there is no conscious intermediate state, if there are no disembodied spirits, why would there be laws against necromancy or something like that? Uh, and my answer to that would be for the same reason uh that praying to idols is prohibited even though they have no real existence. Just because idols can't answer prayers doesn't mean it's not worth prohibiting. I think it opens doors to uh demonic deception and that makes it worth prohibiting. And in this case um in in the case of inquiring from the dead uh yeah I mean I I think that's reason

49:43 enough. So he also mentions uh a few church fathers. And while I appreciate looking into the church fathers, I think it's one thing to quote some second century church fathers, but it's another to quote their reasoning and see whether that reasoning is sound. And that's where I think these particular church fathers that um Steve or Nathan quoted would fail to pass the sniff test. Uh he mentions NDEs. Uh I have an argument here uh in uh in response to uh uh appeals to NDEs that I want to present. It's very short. Two premises, one conclusion. Uh first premise, uh a particular view of the intermediate state can be considered best supported by the empirical evidence if the number of post-death experience

50:28 testimonies consistent with this view is substantially greater than that of testimonies consistent with the other view. Premise two, the number of post-death experience testimonies consistent with a conscious intermediate state is not substantially greater than that of testimonies consistent with an unconscious intermediate state. Conclusion, the biblical picture of a conscious intermediate state cannot be considered best supported by the empirical evidence. In a 2001 study by Van Von Lamel, you had 344 people resuscitated from clinical death following cardiac arrest. And out of those 344, 282, that is 82% had no recollection of any sort of conscious experience. Have similar numbers in the Grayson 2003 study in which 116 people were resuscitated. And out of those 116

51:14 uh 98 that is 84 or sorry is it yeah 98 84.5% had no recollection of any sort of conscious experience and the Parnia 2001 study in which 63 people were resuscitated and out of those 63 56 that is 85.9% or sorry 88.9 it's very small on my screen 88.9% had no recollection of any sort of conscious experience. So yeah, I I just don't think that you can appeal to NDEs and treat it as though it's better support for your view than ours. Uh let me get back to the list here of things that I wanted to respond to. Uh they mentioned Luke 23:43. Uh and this is all I'm going to say because I'm going to hand it over to

52:00 Chris here. U there are different ways of interpreting Luke 23:43, the thief on the cross. Uh, one argument is the Hotti argument, mostly known as the comma argument. And I agree that it doesn't suffice to say that there are no commas in Greek. Um, in Luke 4:21 and 19:19, two instances where Luke intended to relate Searon today to the clause following it rather than to the preceding verb, he separated the verb and searon with hotti, that is that I say to you that today blah blah blah. Uh, so it seems more likely than not that Luke would have done the same in Luke 23:43 if his intention had been the same. Uh, I can't say much more now, Chris. Go ahead. Running out of time. All righty. Uh, so continuing to talk about the extra biblical evidence that Nathan raised, um, it's important to

52:47 observe right from the outset that the inter the the intertestamental Jewish culture was not monolithic on whether the dead are conscious or not. James in his uh in our opening quoted Sirak who is uh which is a document that has a an impact on the New Testament and it reflects a a disbelief in the consciousness of the dead. So clearly in the ancient near east there was a diversity of views. Uh and so you wouldn't be it wouldn't be surprising to find that there were people who sacrificed for the dead or archaeological evidence that some people believed in consciousness in death. Um the question is whether that reflects the dominant view and the evidence presented there does not support the claim that that was the dominant view. And as for first Enoch and other intertestamental texts um first of all first Enoch is apocalyptic symbolism. Um

53:32 what is being shown to Enoch in this vision isn't meant to be taken literally. And as far as I've been able to find there's no straightforward didactic teaching in the book of first Enoch that supports a conscious intermediate state. Um but again we have a diversity of views. We've already presented some intertestamental literature that pres that supports unconsciousness in death. So while the extra biblical evidence is interesting, I don't think it's decisive one way or the other. And that's why James and I have focused our opening on the uh biblical evidence to which I want to turn now. And probably the the bulk of the rest of my time will be on Lazarus and the rich man. It's important to understand that notwithstanding the rhetoric used by our friend Steve uh Stephen, it's not true that James and I are going to the Old Testament and then using that to refute, I think is the

54:18 word that Steven used, the teaching of Christ and and other writers of the New Testament. Of course, we're not doing that. Quite the contrary, James and I don't think the New Testament teaches consciousness and death, whether Jesus or any of the New Testament authors, and that includes Luke 16. Now, Nathan pointed out that Josephus claims in antiquities of the Jews that the Pharisees believed in disembodied consciousness. And that's true. He does write that. But Josephus is a very questionable authority on the Pharisees. See, Josephus says that the Pharisees uh are to be or sorry, he said that the Pharisees believe that the wicked dead are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but the righteous shall have the power to revive and live again. So notice that Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed only the righteous would be resurrection and they denied the resurrection of the unrighteous. But

55:05 thanks thankfully we have God breathed scripture that corrects Josephus's false statement about the Pharisees there. In the New Testament in Acts 24 and other places, Paul says that he was a Pharisee. And in Acts 24:15, Paul says to the Roman procurator of Judea that he believes what his fellow Jews believe, namely there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So, I'm going to go with what Paul says about the Pharisees over what Josephus says about the Pharisees. And what this means is I we can't assume Josephus was right about the Pharisees believing in a conscious intermediate state. And we can't assume Jesus would have had any need to correct them when he's talking in about Luke 16. Now, as for what is often argued that that all of Jesus's parables depict a realistic setting, um that may be true, but the reason that Jesus's parables do that is so the

55:51 scenes therein are familiar to his hearers. The familiarity enables hearers to better understand a parable's transcendent spiritual meaning because they understand what's going on in the imminent parabolic scene. But this familiarity can be achieved by other means, such as by presenting hearers with a scene that they're familiar with, not from daily life, but from popular folk tales and tropes. And in Jesus's day, folk tales featuring reversals of fortune in the afterlife were very popular all throughout the ancient near east. So imagine if Christ came to us today and tells us a parable featuring extraterrestrial aliens arriving on Earth in a spaceship and encountering mankind for the first time, saying, "Take us to your leader." This is a common trope familiar to virtually everyone today. And while many Christians believe in aliens, many of us do not. And we wouldn't all assume that

56:36 Jesus is endorsing belief in aliens by leveraging this familiar trope. we'd understand the transcendent spiritual message that the parable is meant to communicate because we'd be familiar with the the the trope of aliens and first contact even if we don't think that Jesus is literally uh affirming belief therein. Uh so that's the end of our rebuttal time I think and we'll get to say more in cross- exam I'm sure we are back and thank you for that gentlemen. We're going to move into a time of crossexamination and that will begin with um uh the cross-examination of the negative, the affirmative cross-examining the negative. That will be 20 minutes. And

57:22 so I will start that as soon as the first question comes. Gentlemen, whenever you're ready. You want to start, Steve, or you want me to go? Um, I I'll let you ask the first one. Okay. So, what would you guys say is your explanation of the most of ancient Israel believing in a conscious afterlife? I know that you said that there is a plurality of uh beliefs there, but the common practice was for example the archaeological stuff we mentioned and uh all of that. So, what what would you guys explanation be for the fact that the majority view was what we're espousing now? Uh, I I'll let James answer if he has anything to add to what I want to say

58:07 here, but I would first say I think you're assuming a lot about what was the common view. And unless you're talking about the entire ancient near east, including, for example, Egypt, it may indeed be the case that most people in the ancient near east believed in a conscious intermediate state, but most people in the ancient near east were also polytheists. So who so what? We we know the ancient Israelites were told the truth by God that there is in fact only one God. And so it seems to me perfectly reasonable to think that God revealed to the ancient Israelites the truth about the afterlife even if the rest of their neighbors got it wrong. So um Ali Latipu in her book that I cited in my our opening statement she does like a a big deep dive into ancient Iris and she does mention Egypt and Mesopotamia but she also cites that the

58:53 majority of uh graves that we find in ancient Israel specifically has like objects of use in this life and the belief was that they would be using those objects in the afterlife. And so in order to in order to be able to interact with that claim, I'd have to have a quote showing what her evidence is for the claim, not only that the use of object that the that that having objects at these grave sites represents the dominant view amongst the ancient Hebrews, but also that the reason they put these objects there was because they'd be able to be used in the afterlife. I I I I'm open to that evidence, but I doubt we're going to be able to have much time to get into it in the here and now. So what I would say is that um if she provides or he I'm sorry I didn't catch the name there provides substantial evidence um that uh that

59:42 that in and you mentioned this of Heiser too. If they can if they have a a substantial amount of evidence that the reason that they put those objects there was because they they thought they'd use them in the afterlife. I'd be interested in interacting with that evidence. I just don't have it here. So can I please say something very very quick? Very quick. So I mean if even if it were the case that a lot of Israelites believed uh in the idea that you could bring something with you into the next life, Paul in 1 Timothy 6 vers 7 says we brought nothing into the world and we cannot take anything out of the world. So just because a number of ancient Israelites might have had that belief doesn't mean that they're right. Um and so even if many Israelites believed in a conscious intermediate state doesn't mean they're right either. Braxton, are we allowed to make counterpoints or do we only ask

1:00:27 questions? We I don't think we settled that before. Yeah. Well, typically the way this would go is you ask questions. Uh only ask question. Let's you could exactly you could phrase your followup in the form of a question. So like if I were to respond to what you just said with the following, how would you respond to that? Yeah, I think we'd

…