The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-08-24

ARE THE DEAD CONsCIOusy


gumen and Scripture texts which he supposes to favor
his position tbs but fair therefore, to allow some
space in your columns for a replication
submit with all Difference that the texts cited when
fairly interpreted do sustain his conclusion lie, us
examine them Luke l6 cha 10 The rich man and Lazarus
Now this coniessedy parable and we have the or
hodor authority of Dr. Adam Clarke (Com Math, CHI
26 that by the general of ALL Except the basey
ineresed metaphor is to be produced in proof Of
doctrine Besides the described is physical and per-
sona and not in which phantom souls airy dis
imbodied spirits figure. 1t Lazarus mot his soul)
which carried by angels to Abrahams bosom 1t
the rich mot his spirit that died and was buried He
lifts up his eyes he wishes his tongue be cooled for he is
tormented in flame, &c. Can "dsmbodied spirit be
tormented in iame2 Has it tongue that be cooled
with watery 1t is Christ who tesfes "a spirit hath
flesh and bones but here spirits according to your
correspondent who have both
The state OF the dead the subject of the discourse
in Luke 10 CHI The parable spoken convince the
Jews that If they hear Moses and the prophets neither
would they be persuaded though from the dead
See 3st verse An intermediate mboded state is plainly
and necessarily excluded 10y the very dapey of the figure
The Thsf on Tie Cross Luke, 90 CHI, 40 To-day shalt
thou be with in Paradise cited Its pertnency and
authority proof is electualy annulled by either of
the three following considerations:
!. The words quoted which supposed to favor the
current opinion spoken in reply to the petition of the
thief" Lord remember when thou mot goest
into thy kingdom" The reply is responsive to this ques
ton 1t is "On this day (of which you speakthe day of
my coming thou shalt be with in Paradse' The Greek
adverb is seeerOn" which Donnegans lexicon defines
mean on This day"n the of this that cey day
the day Of which you speak and this is better render
ing than the to-day of King Jamess version Thus
destood the promise of Jesus to the thief that he shall
be with him IN Paradise IN the day Of his coming and not
at DEATH when he certainly did not into his king
dom"
g. Again: Where ParadiseP Your correspondent
will probably answer I'm heare, of course But where is
the proof of this? Milton in Paradise Lost and Moore
in Lala Rookh" will sustain his assertions but the Bible
utterly epudiates it. Paradise Eden certainly To-
Gated in Assyra 1t was bounded side by the river
Euphates and another by the TigrisGen q CHI A. 1t
onMe EARTH and not in above the heavens Adam
and Eve in Paradise undenaby. Were they then in
hearen2 When Christ "comes in his kingdom he will
the righteous to Paradisehus fulfilling the prom
Use in Rev, I'd eh ITO him that overcometh will give
of the of life which is in the midst of the Pora
disc Of God The Paradise promised to the thief then
earth, where only the Bible testes it existed.
g. The undispucd facts connected with the transaction
prove concusvely that Christ not himself in heaven
the day of his death, for it is three days aterward that
he says to Mary Touch not for am not yet assembled
my Fahern-Jno. 90 II. Now if three days after his
death he had assembled his Father how can it be
that he on the day of his death with the thief in
heaven?
So much for your correspondents confident assertion
that this text clearly proves his position! We see that
when fairly interpreted in the light Of Scripture facts it is
directly opposed to his theory The conclusion awaits
fair exegcca examination of his other quotations st
Paus desire depart and be with Christ is admitted by
Dr. Mcknight in the notes his version of the Epistles
loco to be defective rendering of the Greek word
translated depart which he says is better rendered IRE
turn which would give Paus earnest desire for the
returning and being with Chris'of course EARTH and
L.. Mt DOH
49, where Christ confutes the Sadducees rho denied the
resurrection is unfortunate for him See the passage,
Esd 46h The subject of controversy not the
state of the dead but tie truth Of the resurrection The Sa
viours language in 81 is But touching the
recioa the dead have not read that which spoken
unto you by God, saying, am the God of Abraham Of
Isaac and of jacob God is not the God Of the Dead but
of the living" What is the import of this but If He
had said in SO many words Abraham Isaac and Jacob
are dead, but God is not the God of the dead yet,
He is their God, they must come to life by resur-
rection, that this Scripture may be fulfilled, and He
may be proued to be their Goa?" As the quotation from
the law of Moses to prove the resurrection to show
that the dead raised unless you give The above
strucon the passage it is wholly nconcusve and rre
Your correspondent says it used to prove that
Abraham &C. still diise but would that have proved
the doctrine of e esurrecionthc point in dispute? La
candor dictate the aasscer.
Having thus disposed of the formidable array Of author
ties which scrutiny has presented so complacentiy fear
extend this article to greater length by any reference
Scripture texts additional to those cited in
ncaon the ntcigencer of the 18th July to which the
reader is referred will content myself for the present.
with asking attention to the palpaby inconsistent and r
rational say absurd consequences to which his po
ston that the dead conscious mnst conduct him
l. AS his theory, the righteous rewarded and the
wicked punished deak there is neither necessity
proprety in future resurrection day If the righteous
are in heaven with Cod in whose presence there is full
ness of 10y at whose right hand there pleasures
more there .an be neither in reuniting
then, by a resurrection with the body They cannot be
more than "fu of oy'-cannot enjoy more or higher
pleasures than those and so the resurrection
day u.s. at least useless arrangement
@ On the same hypothesis, future judgment day, in
which all shall give account of the deeds done in the
body is also vain absurd for il the fate of the dead
is determined at death il must be if rewarded pun
ished at that time what need Of another Judgment win
Won try .hem over again2 win you reward and punish
fyst and hen nStitnte brnel for inquiry into merits
vices Of which they have aeaay been visit
ed-for hundreds of years it may bewiih inst retribu-
tom What would your correspondent think Of the wis
dom or Righteousness Of human law which first rewarded
the good punished the evil and long afterwards grave
ly summoned parties before the judge to be tried for Of
fences of which the good had already been acquitted and
the guilty already convicted and punshed2 And yet this
is he JcHy hi. theory lascns on " he J"dge Of all he
earth
g. To this hypothesis of your correspondents dog
ma repeat which claim higher origin than the
weak and bcggary philosophy of the Greeks and Ro-
mans mere heather Mythoogst without the light of
Of truth tn