I understand that when it comes to our perception that there would be no difference between the two. But I do think it is important to have a proper understanding of “the resurrection of the dead”. And I think we can only have a proper understanding of the resurrection of the dead if we have a proper understanding of who the dead are and how they are raised.
I do not believe that when we physically die that we are still waiting for “the resurrection of the dead”. I believe that Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life and just as we were baptized into HIS DEATH (= second death) so did we have part in HIS RESURRECTION (= the first resurrection).
Some will say… well yeah, but only figuratively, because they don’t believe we are truly resurrected from the dead until our physical bodies are resurrected and/or changed into the type of body that Jesus had after His resurrection… one that is “flesh and bones” but that can also pass through walls, materialize in locked rooms, and/or disappear at will. But that is not how I see the dead or the resurrection of the dead nor what I understand to be the reason why Jesus appeared as He did, in a body of flesh and bones, after His resurrection.
A “soul” (nephesh) is “a breathing creature” and what makes that “soul” LIVING or DEAD is “the breath of life” (ie the Spirit of God). God sends forth His spirit as we are “created”. He takes it away and we “return to dust” (to our natural, carnal state). As I see it, when God said; “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” he was not talking about physical death (man has always been MORTAL… it is THIS MORTAL that must PUT ON immortality, that ONLY CHRIST has). He was talking about the same thing James was talking about when he said:
Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
That is the “death” that is “the wages of sin”, the “death” Adam suffered in the garden, and the “death” that was passed on to all men - for all men have sinned. And it is THIS “death” from which we need to be “resurrected”. It is not a postmortem event tied (mostly) to physically dead bodies, but one that must take place “in this world” for it is THIS MORTAL who is “putting on” IMMORTALITY.
It is not about being “unclothed” but about being “clothed upon”. And Paul said that if this earthly tabernacle were DISSOLVED that would KNOW that WE HAVE that house not made with hands. It is not a body that we must wait for but one that is reserved for us in the heavens.
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
How do you harmonize your disbelief in a physical resurrection with the words of Paul in I Cor 15 in which he describes the resurrection as most physical indeed?
32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Paul certainly seems to be saying that if there is no resurrection we will eventually die and remain dead, so what good was all his sacrifice for the sake of witnessing for Christ? He might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for there is nothing beyond death for him.
35 ¶ But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
It sounds to me as if Paul is saying that the resurrection body is as different from our present body as a wheat plant is different from a grain of wheat. Though a wheat plant differs greatly from a grain of wheat, they are nevertheless both wheat. Although the resurrection body differs greatly from our present mortal body, nevertheless both are bodies.
51 ¶ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
Does this not tell us not all people will die a physical death? (figuratively called “sleep” Even Jesus said of a girl who had died, “She is sleeping”. But when others thought He was speaking of natural sleep, told them plainly, “She is dead”).
Not all shall die. Some will be alive at His coming, but at that time they shall all be changed instantly in the sense that their mortal bodies will put on immortality. The immortal bodies into which those who are alive at His coming, shall be changed, are identical to the immortal bodies which the raised saints will possess when they become alive again at Jesus’ second coming.
Yet, “the soul (= a BREATHING creature) that sinneth, it shall die”.
And in the day that Adam sinned, Adam (a LIVING soul) “died” (becoming a DEAD soul).
That has no bearing on Adam’s physical condition, it concerns his spiritual condition.
We “are dead” in sin and yet when God sends forth His spirit we, too, are “made a LIVING soul” and “translated into the kingdom of God” (the garden God planted eastward in Eden).
So while it may be “body + spirit = soul”, there is a NATURAL body and there is a SPIRITUAL body. And it is not “the spirit of man” that makes one " a LIVING soul", it is the spirit OF GOD that makes one “a LIVING soul”. And that which was sewn IS NATURAL while that which is raised IS SPIRITUAL.
It’s not a “disembodied” soul. It is a soul with A SPIRITUAL BODY. And it is “the body of Christ”.
Jesus being “crucified in a place called a SKULL” and being buried in a physical tomb for three days and three nights is “a figure” of something far greater - that cannot be seen with the natural eye.
Man has been “crucifying” THE TRUTH since the very foundation of the world. We became enemies IN OUR MINDS and OUR LIFE WAS HID (with Christ in God) by being BURIED “in the heart of the earth” (WITHIN US) until that SEED/WORD which was PLANTED (for it fell into the ground and DIED) is “raised from the dead”… AND WE WITH HIM!
I do not believe he is speaking of a physical resurrection at all. That is why he says to him that wold ask: “How are the dead raised up and with body do they come?” with “Thou fool”.
He tells us that the body that was sewn IS NOT the body that is raised.
And just as not all flesh is the same flesh neither are all celestial bodies the same.
Paul likens the difference to the difference between the sun, the moon and the stars, even from one star to another.
And who are “the stars” in the book of Revelation? Are they not men, even “the angels of the churches”? And doesn’t Jesus speak of us becoming “as the angels of God” when it comes to “the resurrection of the dead”?
yes, of course, they are both bodies. I’ve not ever said otherwise.
Do you see that as only “a future event”?
We do not ALL SLEEP. Some have already passed from death unto life, right?
But I believe that we have all been changed for those in Christ are “a new creature”. Right?
Note that it is THIS MORTAL that is “putting on” IMMORTALITY. According to Paul, we do this by being “clothed upon” - not by being “unclothed”.
That which IS SEEN bears witness to that which IS NOT SEEN. We are supposed to be looking upon those things which are nor seen (comparing spiritual things to spiritual). Right?
So what does PHYSICAL death tell us about the SPIRITUALLY dead?
Jesus comes the second time unto them that look for Him. That “coming” (appearance, revelation, presence) takes place “within” as He is coming into His kingdom (which is “within”).
When Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain not preventing those who sleep I believe he is talking about people who are physically alive, whether they be “alive” or “dead” (after a spiritual truth) and he is telling us not to mourn for those who sleep because 'the dead in Christ shall rise first".
They are not physically dead, though. They are among those who “remain” unto “the end”.
Jesus said that in the time of harvest (He said the field were white already to harvest, even then) he would send forth his angels to reap (who did he send to reap?) telling them “gather ye together FIRST THE TARES”. These are “the dead in Christ” of which Paul spoke. And the tares/dead are gathered/raised FIRST because “if one died for all, then were ALL DEAD”.
It is only “the dead” who are in need of “resurrection”. Right?
We (being dead, but also being baptized into HIS DEATH) were raised WITH HIM. But I believe that we each come to the knowledge of that truth and come to know THE POWER of HIS RESURRECTION “at His coming” (his being formed IN US)… “every man in his own order”.
Christ, the FIRSTFRUIT (because HE IS OUR LIFE), THEN those who are His AT HIS COMING (His appearing IN THEM that believe), THEN cometh THE END… when “the dead in Christ” shall be raised and those who are alive and remain shall be caught up in the air with them… and we shall ALL “ever be with the Lord” and God will be “all in all”.
i don’t see that as having anything to do with this earthly, natural body. They are not “the same” body. And I do not believe that we are “disembodied” when this natural body dies and begins to return to the dust from which it came. We have a spiritual body already reserved for us in the heavens.
Sorry for the (relatively) delayed response; I’ve been at the beach!
You wrote:
By “invisible nature” I assume you mean the “immortal soul.” Because even I believe that there is a part of us that is “unseen” - I simply hold that this part of us refers to the “mental” aspect of our nature. But this aspect of our nature is not, I believe, something that can “survive the body,” since I understand a functioning brain as being that which makes “mind” possible for a human being. When the brain dies, I think there is good reason to believe that all mental activity ceases.
But when a statue is destroyed it no longer exists - all that exists is the matter by which it was constituted. And if we are constituted by our body and our body dies and is “destroyed,” we no longer exist, either. We will, of course, continue to exist in a conceptual sense in the mind of God (just as we existed conceptually in God’s mind before he brought us into actual existence), but in order for us to exist again in an actual sense we must be re-constituted.
In an earlier post, I wrote:
Since you believe that we are immortal souls, is it your view that every individual who is said to have “died” in Scripture (and there are countless examples) did not, in fact, die? Because if every individual of which Scripture speaks is an immortal soul, how could they be said to “die?”
I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I’m not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we’re immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we’d be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.
I believe we exist in the same number of dimensions as the physical body by which we are constituted does, and I don’t think you’ve yet given any evidence (Scriptural or otherwise) to the contrary. And where is your evidence that angelic beings are not embodied? Just because they are immortal and able to do things we can’t do in our mortal state doesn’t mean they aren’t embodied. Since angelic beings exist, I believe their existence must either be localized or they must exist in every possible place. And if they don’t exist in every possible place, then I can’t conceive of them as being without some sort of body by which they are constituted and localized.
So beliefs that are most “common” and “general” among human beings are more likely to be true? If I’m not mistaken, a belief in either ECT or annihilation was the most “common” belief in Christ’s day among both Jews and Pagans. And in Christ’s day, a belief in multiple deities was more common in Christ’s day than a belief in a single deity, unless you believe there were more Jews living in Christ’s day than there were Pagans in the world.
That we continue to consciously exist in a disembodied state after we die is not something that my experience/observation leads me to believe. If I am to believe it, it would have to be revealed to me by God. And since I don’t see it as having been revealed by God, I can’t just take your word for it. The fact that it was a common belief among the Jews and Pagans in Christ’s day doesn’t lead me to believe that they were correct in their opinions. In fact, it would seem that the more the Jews learned from and emulated the Pagans around them, the further they strayed from God.
I’m not sure what you mean by going “to the full extreme.” The fact is that rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God’s personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. Correct? By virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware we would necessarily bear the image of God, while non-human “living souls” would not. But if being in the image of God has to do with having a “transcendent, immortal soul,” and all non-human animals have “transcendent living souls” and thus “go to heaven” when they die (as you seen to believe), then what, according to your view, elevates a human being over, say, a dog or a chimpanzee?
Also, the fact that man can be “evil” “immoral” or act “very irrational” presupposes rather than points away from the fact that he is made in the image of God, because to be “evil” or “immoral” is to violate one’s moral nature and act in a way that is contrary to how one was created to live. One of my miniature dachshunds recently killed a baby duck that got into our yard (poor thing!), but it certainly wasn’t “evil” or “immoral” for doing so. If my next-door neighbour were to do the same thing, however, I would definitely consider his actions “evil” “immoral” and “irrational.” Why? Because I know he has a moral, rational nature, and I can’t conceive of any reason why he might choose to brutally kill a baby duck that would not constitute a violation of his moral, rational nature.
I believe God only does what he thinks is best, and if God didn’t do what you think he did, then it wouldn’t be “better.”
Certainly, but if God has so created man I think he would’ve revealed it in Scripture. Since I don’t think he has, I don’t believe he’s done it.
One could argue that it would be “better” not to have been created mortal in any sense or to have to physically suffer and die at all. Who likes physical suffering and death and think it makes this present existence better than it otherwise would be? But since we are mortal, are able to physically suffer and do physically die (even though I’d prefer not to), then I’m inclined to believe that what seems “best” to us is not necessarily what seemed best to God when he created us and ordered our existence the way he did.
Moreover, Paul didn’t seem to have any desire for the intermediate state between death and resurrection (what he calls being “naked” and “unclothed”); rather, his burden and longing was to “put on our heavenly dwelling” and be “further clothed.” And if by “naked” and “unclothed” Paul meant “existentially alive in a disembodied state,” then it would seem that, for Paul, it would be “better” to go directly into the presence of God in an embodied state. And according to my view, this is exactly what we experience (and, I believe, what Paul was anticipating): we die in an embodied state and our next conscious experience is in an embodied state. I think God ordered our existence in the way that he did for a benevolent reason: since we weren’t created to exist without a body, God made sure that the intermediate state between death and resurrection would be one of unconsciousness so that our next conscious experience would be in a re-embodied state. It sure beats being conscious of our “nakedness.”
Well then it can’t be because our pets lack a transcendent immortal soul that they don’t bear God’s image. May I suggest that these non-human “living souls” don’t bear God’s image because they lack certain fundamental personal attributes such as rational self-awareness and a moral nature?
I believe that the individual who is in Christ stays in Christ as well. But I deny that being “in Christ” entails that one remains existentially alive after physically dying just like I deny that it entails that one remains physically alive in an embodied state after physically dying. And I believe Scripture supports the latter just as much as it supports the former (which is to say it doesn’t support it at all).
Well first, I’m of the opinion that the prophetic vision which God gave Micaiah was not necessarily a literal scene that actually transpired in heaven. The “lying spirit” of which Micaiah speaks is, I believe, a personification of the “spirit of error/falsehood” (1 John 4:6; cf. Ezekiel 13:3, 8). I don’t think an actual, personal being went and became a “lying spirit in the mouth of all [Ahab’s] prophets.”
Second, let’s assume that this “spirit” was an actual personal, conscious being. Does being called a “spirit” preclude having a body? No, because angels are called “spirits” (Heb 1:13-14) and yet it’s evident that they have visible and tangible bodies of some sort (Gen 19:1-3, 16; 32:22-31; Hosea 12:4; Rev 22:8). Even Christ in his resurrection body is referred to as a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). Being called a “spirit” does not mean one isn’t constituted by a physical body.
“But” (it may be objected) “what about Luke 24:37-39?”
Again, angelic beings are called “spirits,” but they could be both touched and seen, just as Christ could be after his resurrection. So if by “spirit” Jesus meant an angelic being, then his allowing his disciples to see and touch his hands and feet would not have done much good, because angels have hands and feet (again, Jacob wrestled with one, and John fell at the “feet” of one). Even for those who do not think angels have physical bodies must acknowledge that angels can look and feel like they have physical bodies. Had Jacob been present along with the disciples when Jesus appeared to them and understood Jesus to be talking about angels, he could’ve replied, “Well the angel I wrestled with had hands and feet and certainly felt like he had flesh and bones!”
So what is the meaning of this passage? My understanding is that the word “spirit” is not being used in the sense of a higher angelic being, but rather to what many today would refer to as a “ghost.” Understood in this sense, the disciples didn’t think they were seeing the kind of supernatural being of which the OT speaks, but rather a dead person. If this is the case, then Christ was not sanctioning the meaning that they were ascribing to the word “spirit” at this time (which is probably meant to be understood as synonymous with the word phantasma used in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:49); he’s simply telling them that a “spirit” (in the sense of a “ghost”) does not have hands and feet and cannot be touched. It would be like me telling someone who mistakenly believes in the existence of vampires (and thought I was one), “See, a vampire doesn’t have a reflection as you see that I have.” For a person who from childhood has believed that vampires or ghosts exist, it wouldn’t do much good to tell them that vampires or ghosts don’t exist if they were frightened out of their wits because they thought they were in the presence of one. For one who is as “startled and frightened” as the disciples were, evidence that one isn’t in the presence of what one mistakenly believes one is in the presence of would be more helpful - and of course, that’s exactly what Christ does. Perhaps at another time (when the disciples were in a calmer state of mind), Jesus explained to them that the kind of “spirit” that they thought he was (i.e., a “ghost”) exists only in man’s imagination.
For my understanding of “evil spirits,” you can check out the following thread: Fallen Angels?
In short, I believe the Jews understood “evil spirits” or “demons” to be the disembodied spirits of wicked men (i.e., malevolent ghosts), and that Christ and his apostles were simply using the language of the day to refer to the psychological maladies that demons/evil spirits were thought to be responsible for.
Is John telling his readers not to believe every disembodied being they encounter? If so, how often do you think his readers encountered and received messages from disembodied beings? It must have been pretty common for him to give such a warning. But I don’t think the word “spirit” refers to disembodied beings at all. Rather, I believe John is using the figure of speech metonymy. The word “spirit” can refer to a person’s mind, feelings or mental disposition, or the inward influence or principle that governs and motivates a person’s actions. John is likely using the word to refer to those people who were professing to be prophets. IOW, he’s telling his readers not to believe every prophet, but to test them. And why is this? “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The “spirits” in view here are living, embodied men who were either being guided by the “spirit of truth” or the “spirit of error.”
Again, the word “spirit” can refer to the mental/emotional aspect of our nature, but that doesn’t mean it’s a separate entity or “immaterial substance” that exists in a disembodied, conscious state after death.
What do you mean by “more?”
I’m not sure where our disagreement is here, Lefein. Jesus proved his power over death by restoring a man to physical, embodied life. It’s true that Lazarus wasn’t raised in an immortal body, but he was restored to physical life nonetheless. I’m sure it’s not your view that Jesus was demonstrating the full extent of his power over death by restoring a dead man to a mortal existence. And of course the sense in which Christ is “the resurrection” is much greater in meaning than his having the power to restore the dead to a mortal existence, for I believe he will raise all who die in Adam to an immortal, happy and holy existence. I cannot conceive of a “better resurrection” than this, so I’m perplexed why you would say the resurrection is “much more” than this.
Of course; Jesus is today bestowing spiritual “life” upon those who believe on him, and will be dong so for as long as he reigns. Jesus also has the power to restore those who have physically died to a mortal existence both today as well as tomorrow. Neither this kind of “resurrection” nor this kind of “life” is “just a thing for the future.” But Jesus also has the power to raise those who have physically died to an immortal, sinless existence, and I don’t believe he will exercise this power (which I believe is the full extent of his power over “death, the last enemy”) until the “last day.”
The Jews were monotheists long before Plato came around, so I hardly think this is an example of God “inspiring” heathen with divine truth. I’m more inclined to believe that apart from divine revelation man tends to believe in multiple gods, so Plato’s monotheism should more properly be attributed to God’s previously having revealed this to the Jewish people. It’s certainly possible that God had been preparing the heathen so that they might be more receptive to what God had already revealed to the Jews. And how do you know Plato’s beliefs regarding the immortality of the soul were more “inspired” than any other pagan belief that was not derived from the OT?
The Jews had embraced a lot of pagan ideas by the time Christ came into the world, but if the ideas weren’t derived from what God had revealed to them (and the ideas could only be derived from a divine source rather than experience/observation), then I don’t see any reason to believe they were true. And I didn’t say an idea is negated of its value as being “true” just because it’s “Greek.” But if it’s contrary to what God has chosen to reveal to man, I don’t think it’s of any value whatsoever.
As far as I know Christ didn’t stand up and say any pagan beliefs were wrong. But that doesn’t mean he thought they were right, especially if the Law and the Prophets had nothing to say about it. And I’m very much aware that Gentiles throughout history have believed the dead to exist in a conscious disembodied state, but it was Plato who I believe made an already ancient pagan idea more intellectually acceptable and appealing.
Nor do I believe the “Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas (etc.).” But to whatever extent that they believed what God chose to reveal to them and reverently/humbly refrained from embracing that which God had not revealed (but which only God could give any certain knowledge of), I believe their beliefs were far superior to those of the pagans or even the “early church Fathers” (who I see no reason to believe were more “Spirit-filled” than those Christians who denied that man has an “immortal soul”).
Is Christ’s silence on the matter of reincarnation or transmigration also “telling” to you that this common belief wasn’t and isn’t a gross error? Christ also said nothing directly against the view that some will be annihilated or eternally miserable; is this also “telling” to you that this common belief wasn’t and isn’t a gross error?
How does this tell you that it is not just a mere fancy? Is something more likely to be true because it’s been believed for a long time by a majority of people?
I know from experience and observation that I have and am constituted by a body, but my experience and observation does not lead me to believe that I have what you call an “immortal soul.” And unless God has revealed that we have an “immortal soul,” I can’t help but see it as existing only in one’s imagination, and don’t see why we should believe we are dependent on it rather than on our body to exist.
I think we’d be “immortal-soul dependent” if we had immortal souls just as much as you think we would be “body-dependent” if we didn’t. Your talk of being “God-dependent” vs. “body-dependent” is, I believe, little more than bombast.
It’s true that physical death cannot separate you from the LOVE of God in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:38-39), but “death, the last enemy” will not be “destroyed” and “swallowed up in victory” until the dead are raised at the sounding of the last trumpet (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18). Not before. The “death” that you will not and cannot die as long as you believe on Christ and abide in him is the “death” of which Christ speaks in John 5:24, and of which Paul speaks in Eph 2:1. This “death” has nothing to do with whether or not one is conscious after physical death.
It is our DNA, memory and consciousness/self-awareness (i.e., our first-person perspective) that makes us who we are. If a person is raised with your DNA, memory and first-person perspective after you die, then this “clone” (as you say) will be you, not someone else. It will be you who will have been restored to a living existence.
When Paul said that he had “a hope in God…that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15) he was referring to human persons - i.e., human individuals with DNA and memory and consciousness - being raised from the dead (i.e., restored to a living existence). It is not a person’s body that is “just” or “unjust.” It is the person who is “just” or “unjust.” Thus, it is the person - the individual - who is being raised/restored to a living existence. And if it’s the individual who is to be raised, then it’s the individual who was dead and in need of being raised. But “immortal souls” don’t die and aren’t in need of being restored to a living existence. Thus, human persons/individuals aren’t “immortal souls,” nor are they constituted by “immortal souls.”
Like the word “salvation” or “saved,” “perish” can mean different things in different contexts. Sometimes it means physical death/cessation of existence, sometimes it doesn’t. It always seems to refer to some kind of loss or undesirable condition, though. In John 11:50 Caiaphas said, “It is better for you that one man should die for the people, not the the whole nation should perish.” Here, the word “perish” (which is the same word used in John 3:16) probably means being overthrown by the Romans and thus ceasing to exist as a nation (cf. v. 48). In 1 Cor 15:18 “perished” stands in contrast to being raised from the dead, so I think we can infer that it means to remain dead (and thus to cease to exist) permanently.
When Paul speaks of being “absent from the body and at home with the Lord,” the “body” of which he speaks is our mortal body. To be “at home with the Lord” is to be with the Lord in the sense of which Paul speaks in 1 Thess 4:17 (“Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord”), and of which Christ speaks in John 14:3 (“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also”). We will be both “absent from the body and at home with the Lord” when we are raised with our immortal body and caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 2 Cor 5:8 will be fulfilled when John 14:3 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 are fulfilled.
Couldn’t someone say in response, “I don’t believe that ANYONE who doesn’t already believe - or isn’t already inclined to believe - that the dead are conscious would ever interpret this passage as you interpret it”?
It wasn’t being dead that Paul desired, but rather that future state of existence (i.e., post-resurrection) into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him.
Do you understand the difference between “the earnest of the spirit” and “the adoption of sons”? Between “a child” and “a son”?
I ask because many seem to think that what believers receive this side of physical death is “the earnest of the spirit” (or “the firstfruits”), that this is all we can hope for in this life. But those that come forth in the first resurrection to rule and reign with Christ for “a thousand years” are (then) given “eternal life” (immortality during “the Kingdom age”). This is what they see as “the manifestation of the sons of God”.
However, the “earnest” or the “firstfruits” of the spirit is given to us “when we first believe” as this is when we are “sealed by the holy spirit of promise”, which is “the earnest of our inheritance UNTIL the redemption of the purchased possession”.
Eph 1:10-14 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
You seem to believe, as do many others, that we are not “redeemed” until “the resurrection of the dead”. And while that is true, you also believe that “the resurrection of the dead” is, for most of us, a postmortem event that involves the resurrection and/or change of our natural body unto a spiritual, immortal body.
However, the difference between those who have “the earnest of the spirit” and those who have received “the adoption of sons” is “Christ in you”.
At the time we are “sealed with the holy spirit of promise” (when we first believe) we are “babes”, who are “yet carnal”. We are not (yet) “the sons of God”, who are led by the spirit of God. We must “go on unto perfection” (God willing) by being “delivered of the child” (which is why Paul says that “the woman” – the spiritual equivalent to a “babe” or “child” is “saved in childbearing”).
The heir “AS LONG AS HE IS A CHILD differs nothing from A SERVANT”. Those who HAVE “the earnest of the spirit” ARE WAITING FOR “the adoption of sons”, for Christ (the Son) to be formed in them. This is what Paul WENT THROUGH and what he went through “again” with those whom he called “my little children” as they “travailed in birth”.
The reason that I bring this up is because Paul makes it very clear that “the adoption” (of sons) IS “the redemption of our body”
Rom 8:16-23 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the CHILDREN of God: And IF CHILDREN, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory WHICH SHALL BE REVEALED IN US. For THE EARNEST EXPECTATION of the creature WAITETH FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SONS OF GOD. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that THE WHOLE CREATION GROANETH AND TRAVAILETH IN PAIN TOGETHER UNTIL NOW. And NOT ONLY THEY, BUT OURSELVES ALSO, WHICH HAVE THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THE SPIRIT, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION, to wit, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY.
It is THIS MORTAL that is “putting on” IMMORTALITY! And we are doing it, not by being UNCLOTHED, but by being CLOTHED UPON. And THIS IS “death” being “swallowed up of life”.
2Co 4:3-5:10 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For WE PREACH NOT OURSELVES, BUT CHRIST JESUS THE LORD; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, HATH SHINED IN OUR HEARTS, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But WE HAVE THIS TREASURE IN EARTHEN VESSELS, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, THAT THE LIFE ALSO OF JESUS CHRIST MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST IN OUR BODY. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest IN OUR MORTAL FLESH. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus SHALL RAISE US UP ALSO by Jesus, AND SHALL PRESENT US WITH YOU. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but THOUGH OUR OUTWARD MAN PERISH, YET THE INWARD MAN IS RENEWED DAY BY DAY. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While WE LOOK NOT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN, BUT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN: for the things which are seen are TEMPORAL; but the things which are not seen are ETERNAL. For we know that IF OUR EARTHLY HOUSE of this tabernacle WERE DISSDOLVED, we HAVE a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal IN TH HEAVENS. For in this we groan, earnestly DESIRING TO BE CLOTHED UPON with our house which is from heaven: If so be that BEING CLOTHED we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: NOT FOR THAT WE SHOULD BE UNCLOTHED, BUT CLOTHED UPON, THAT MORTALITY MIGHT BE SWALLOWED UP OF LIFE. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us THE EARNEST OF THE SPIRIT. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight): We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Those who have “the earnest of the spirit” are still waiting for “the adoption of sons”. They are still waiting for CHRIST to be formed IN THEM, to be CLOTHED UPON with IMMORTALITY that MORTALITY might be SWALLOWED UP OF LIFE!
We have this treasure IN EARTHEN VESSELS and while THE OUTWARD MAN (and NATURAL BODY) is PERISHING, the INWARD MAN (and SPRITUAL BODY) is renewed day by day.
Though the first, natural, outward man IS DYING (dust returns to dust), the “second man” IS THE LORD FROM HEAVEN.
We are members of HIS BODY! Raised WITH HIM, who is THE HEAD of the body. And that treasure that we have “in earthen vessels” does not cease to exist just because the earthen vessel (born OF THE FLESH) dies. The inward man, born of the spirit and called by the name of Christ who is his head, CANNOT DIE.
That is why Jesus told the Jews that “in the resurrection” we become “as the angels of God” (those “angels”, those “stars in His right hand, ARE MEN) for “they cannot die anymore”. For they HAVE PASSED from death unto life. They are “children of the day” and “children OF THE RESURRECTION”.
That is why Jesus had to be made “a little lower than the angels” FOR THE SUFFERING OF DEATH.
Yes, Paul is speaking about our mortal body. But, as we have discussed before, one need not be physically absent from their mortal body to be “absent from the body and present with the Lord”. He only need walk in the spirit, rather than the flesh. I do not see all of the passages that you believe speak of the resurrection of the dead the same way that you do. I do not believe that one needs to be “unclothed” (die physically) in order to be “clothed upon” (put on immortality).
No, I don’t believe so. But I’d be more than happy to ask around.
How about you? Did you see that passage that way BEFORE coming to believe in soul sleep or only after (if there was a time that you did not believe that doctrine)?
You say this now, but when Paul says he was TORN between remaining in the flesh or departing (DESIRING TO DEPART) you claim that his “desire” WAS to die, physically - knowing his next concious experience would be with the Lord. Why do you think you can have it both ways?
Our desire is not to be unclothed but to be clothed upon… as it is THIS MORTAL BODY that “is quickened” by the spirit of God that dwells in it. It is not the flesh that is being quickened/saved, but the spirit. It has nothing to do with physical death or the natural body. The flesh is not counted for the seed.
Men ARE MORTAL. And it is THIS MORTAL that is groaning and travailing in birth waiting to be “delivered”. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case until all have been redeemed… every man in his own order. That “redemption” (RESURRECTION) is wrought IN CHRIST. HE IS “the resurrection and the life” and because we were BURIED WITH HIM we were RAISED WITH HIM. We just do not all KNOW IT (know THE POWER of His resurrection) because WE SLEEP… UNTIL we hear His voice and AWAKE and ARISE from the dead.
The veil that stands between us and God is THE FLESH. Take the flesh OUT OF THE WAY and what remains to separate us from THE TRUTH?
My understanding is that “adoption” (in a NT sense) is the raising of one who is a son to the true position of a son, with all of its rights and privileges. That is, the “adoption” of God’s natural children (i.e., all who bear his divine image by virtue of creation) is their being elevated to the true position and status of a son or daughter of God. The redemption of our body (i.e., when our “lowly body” is fashioned anew to be like Christ’s “glorious body” at Christ’s coming to subject all things to himself - Phil 3:20-21) from the grave may be called our “adoption as sons” since, at this time, the ultimate purpose for which God created us will be fully realized. There is a sense in which believers have already received the “adoption as sons” (Gal 3:25-26; 4:1-7) and are “sons of God.” But I believe there is an even greater sense in which all people - not just those who believe on Christ during this lifetime - will receive the “adoption as sons” at the resurrection of the dead. Believers are said to be “sons of God” now, but we will be “sons of God” in an even greater sense when we “cannot die anymore” and are made “equal to the angels.” At this time, all who died in Adam will become “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). Not even believers are “sons of God” in this sense. But we (along with everyone else) will be when “death is swallowed up in victory.”
My understanding is that believers were “revealed” or “manifested” as “sons of God” at Christ’s coming in his kingdom in 70 AD. At this time in redemptive history, those whose allegiance was to the risen Christ inherited the kingdom of God and were vindicated as the true people of God (cf. 1 Pet 5:1, 4) in contrast to the unbelieving Jews who so fiercely opposed them and the gospel that they proclaimed. It is in this sense that “the sons of God” (believers) were at this time “revealed,” or unveiled as God’s true people.
The ESV reads, “…who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” It’s possible that Paul has in mind the resurrection of the dead in this verse, but my understanding is that the “inheritance” of which Paul speaks here is an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom, which believers received at Christ’s coming in his kingdom in 70 AD (when the kingdom of God “came with power”). It was at this time that I believe those 1st century Christians to whom Paul wrote inherited the kingdom, to the praise of God’s glory. But the Messianic kingdom (which was inherited by believers in 70 AD and may be entered into by believers today) is, I believe, going to end when Christ has subjected all people to himself and destroyed death, the last enemy. While I believe an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom is age-enduring and continues as long as believers are alive in this mortal state, it is not “eternal” in an absolute sense, and does not pertain to our post-mortem destiny.
I think those who had Christ in them when Paul wrote had the “the Spirit as a guarantee.” The Spirit was, I believe, a guarantee of both their inheritance in the soon-to-be-established Messianic kingdom as well as of their being made immortal at the resurrection of the dead.
Having Christ formed in us is, I believe, a different blessing from being clothed upon with immortality “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.” I don’t think being “sons of God, being children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36) is the same as being “sons of God, through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 3:25-26). The latter takes place when we believe on Christ and are “born again,” while the former will take when the “last trumpet” sounds, the dead are “raised imperishable” and those still alive are “changed.”
I believe the “inner nature” of which Paul speaks in 2 Cor 4:16 refers to our mind (the renewal of which causes us to be “transformed” - Rom 12:2), not to some immortal part of us that is conscious after death. I don’t believe our mind had any existence until our brain was formed and began to function, our consciousness emerged, and we began to think. And I don’t think our mind will exist after our brain dies and ceases to function - at least, not until we are restored to a living existence.
Where is your evidence that the “angels” of which Christ speaks in Luke 20:36 are descendents of Adam? Even if the “seven angels” of Rev 1:16 (i.e., the messengers of the seven churches) are men (i.e., the elders or overseers of the seven churches in Asia to which John wrote), it doesn’t mean the angels/messengers of which Christ spoke in his response to the Sadducees are men (mortal or otherwise).
If the “angels” to which Christ was made " a little lower than" are men (i.e., descendents of Adam), are you saying that Jesus had to be made “a little lower than the descendents of Adam” for the suffering of death? I thought “angels” were contrasted with men rather than identified with them in the letter to the Hebrews (2:5-8; 14-16).
I don’t know how much good it will do to keep going with this conversation, as we seem to be discussing the same things over and over again and we simply are not making any headway.
I recall the first time I came across some of your studies. It was a few years ago at another forum and I was so impressed with how well you laid out your case and that which happened in 70AD as the fulfillment of the prophesy of the second coming of Christ, but knew even then that you were not seeing all that there is to see – for that which is seen, which is given “as an example” or “type” is never the fulfillment of the truth, it is only a shadow of the truth.
And you seem content with the shadows.
It seems as if you are so entrenched in the natural, in the types and shadows, in those things that you can see, touch, and understand with your natural senses that you dismiss the spiritual truths to which they point (which are actually casting those shadows) as the “figures’ (ie “figurative”) of “types”, relegating the spiritual to an inferior position while you elevate the types/shadows to a far superior position.
It really seems, to me anyway, that you are paying homage to the shadows but missing the truth… ever so slightly, it might seem, but it’s like paying homage to the shadow of a car as if it is the real thing because it has the same “shape” and “looks” somewhat like what you believe a car should look like. But you can never sit in that car or drive that car if all you have of the car is it’s “shadow”. I want to scream LOOK UP AND SEE THE CAR! SIT IN IT! DRIVE IT! And maybe that sounds arrogant, as if I am claiming to have perfect vision when it comes to all things spiritual, but I’m not. Believe me! I simply cannot dismiss the spiritual in favor of the natural after it took me so long to see the spiritual in the first place. To me, that would feel like going backwards, as it’s looking on those things which are seen instead of those things that are not seen, which is the complete opposite of what we are told we need to do in order to “rightly divide” the word of truth. I simply do not see how I can “compare spiritual things with spiritual” by looking at what I see are “the types” rather than “the truth”.
But, until I decide whether or not to keep this conversation going, I will answer you last question about the angels (of God), as it relates to men and the resurrection of the dead.
These “angels” are not just “men”, they are men who have experienced “the resurrection of the dead”. It is they who become "as the angels of God in heaven”.
Paul was received “as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus”. (Gal 4:14)
These “angels” cannot die anymore because they “have passed” from death unto life, they are “children of the day”, even “children of the resurrection”. They are those of whom Paul spoke when He told Martha: “I AM the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, THOUGH HE WERE DEAD, YET SHALL HE LIVE: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me SHALL NEVER DIE. Believest thou this?”
You seem to believe that “the dead” mentioned here are corpses in physical graves and they will “live” after they are physically resurrected from their physical graves (or their souls are resurrected out of hades, where they are “sleeping”) and it is because (at this point) they have put on immortality by being resurrected into an immortal body that they “shall never die”.
I don’t see it that way! As I see it, those who are “dead” IN SIN are the ones who are being “resurrected from the dead” BY FAITH (at His coming"… His “appearing” IN THEM) and, as such, THEY LIVE (having PASSED from death unto life) and they “that live and believe” shall "never die”… for the flesh is not being counted!
You see the natural application (physical death, physical graves and physical resurrection) are “the truth” and the spiritual application (spiritual death, the body of this death as our grave, and a spiritual resurrection through which we become “one body” through the spirit) as the “figure” (ie that which you nearly dismiss as secondary or “figurative”). i see it the other way around.
You think I have it backwards. I think you have it backwards. Because that which IS SEEN is TEMPORAL. Those things that ARE SEEN are the types/shadows. It is that which is NOT SEEN that is ETERNAL and what we are told we should be looking upon. So that is what I am looking upon.
Christine, I think your spiritualizing of Scripture is what belongs to shadowland. Aaron is taking scripture about the nature of man, as well as life itself in its vivid reality. He does not live in a dream world.
But do not forget, God is in us already, and we are already in God. That God alone has Immortality, is not only true but it is the highest proof that those who are in Him, and in whom He dwells never to forsake them; His sons and daughters; are immortal as He is immortal. The created child is given that clothing of Christ. The child returns to God, the spirit of who he or she is; the dust returns to the ground, the tabernacle dissolves, the spirit goes on to dwell in the mansions or rooms prepared for them in Christ’s Father’s house. And when Christ comes again and sets his dwelling place in the New, the mansions or rooms will also come with him and be made manifest in the Resurrection; the dwelling places raised up upon the Earth out of Heaven, like New Jerusalem descending out of Heaven after the old Earth with its old Jerusalem rolled away. The Resurrection consummates on the Earth what has already happened in the Father’s house, because in the Resurrection the Earth becomes the Father’s house.
I am immortal, because Immortality dwells in me, and I in Him. He will never forsake me, and I will not be removed from His hands. If He (Life, who is Immortality and the source of it being immortal) is in me and will never forsake me - then He will never exit from me. If I will not, cannot be removed from His hands; then I will not, cannot exit from Him. There can be therefore no touch of Death, or cessation of existence; no divorcement from Immortality or revocation of it, because it is impossible for Him and I to become divorced or revoked from one another.
To be dead as ceased to exist, is to be divorced for a moment from God. He would have left me, forsaken me, removed himself from within me; or I would have been plucked from His hands.
To cease to exist, would be to separate fully and wholly from the I AM; the one who is essentially Existence Himself, and the upholder of all that does exist. If Existence is in you, and upholds you; you will not cease to exist. If you cease to exist even for a moment; Existence is not in you, and certainly did not uphold you because you ceased to exist. That would be, to be forsaken or to be plucked from the hands of Existence by non-Existence, even if it were for a temporary moment - this is not acceptable, and it also goes against what is written, and it especially goes against what is written in the hearts of Christians who have hope;
“I will never; not for one second, by no means, for no moment, not once, not for the briefest span of time or timelessness - leave you, nor forsake you. I am the Resurrection and the Life, I am in you and you are in me. You will never be taken out of me, out of my hands, and I will never be taken out of you. You are a new creature in me, nothing will make you the old creature again. Nothing will separate you from my love, which is Me, for I am Love, as well as Life, and Resurrection. You are my temple, and I am your God, you are a branch and I am the vine. You are my bride and I am your groom; we are one. We will never be divorced apart. Not by death, nor life, nor powers, principalities, angels, or anything in Heaven, or on Earth, or under them both.”
It is for this reason that I am inclined to believe what I believe.
Yes, God alone has immortality; but God is in me, and I am in him; and there will be no loss of either of us out of each other, there shall be no exit; we are one as father and son - for I am his child, and so immortality is in me now because God is in me now just as I am in him now and so I am immortal, being saturated and permeated by Immortality now. That my body dies, or sleeps, must mean I go on beyond it; being immortal by sake of being in him as he is in me first. Vivifying me and making me alive.
To tell me that I shall cease to exist, is to deny that God is in me at all, or that I am in God at all. It would be to deny the very Christianity of the Christian, the very childship of the child. I feel it would be to deny the very Godship of God, and worse; the very Fathership of the Father. Either of these are unacceptable to me.
There is more to the world than just this one. And there is more to the man than the thoughts in his brain and the vessel that carries it, and there is more to the existence of a man’s soul than the existence of his crafted body. Man is a many layered, and complex being full of intricate nerves and muscles and bones, but this is not the full story of the depth of God’s creation; and God forbid it be the maximum depth of His work. There is a soul that extends deeper than the soul’s connectivity and workings in the body, and there extends even deeper the full scope of a wonderfully crafted soul and God-breathed spirit at the very heart of the child He made; and even deeper still is the very Holy Spirit vivifying it all, dwelling inside the very core of the man’s core; the being of the man’s being.
These depths in a man are like the Heaven amidst the Earth with God enthroned in the center of it all.
God made more than a natural vessel, self-aware, and rational. He made a spirit, whose being is the offspring of Himself, much littler, and smaller, but not devoid of that spirit and depth of being than He is infinitely full of.
God is Spirit, and so Man is spirit too, being the offspring of a Spirit, and the spirit returns back to God who embodied it.
I think after this post I’m going to quit or something, replying to this took about two hours, and I am, in all honesty, weary of constructing replies to them of lengths sufficient to give answers to them. These posts are simply too long for me to deal with in regular (on going and prolonged) discussion.
In the body it ceases, not in the being.
It is not all that different from the internet-computer interaction between the two of us. If your computer messed up, and your keyboard went on the fritz and all of the vowel keys on your keyboard stopped working; “n vrythng y typd ws lk ths” that does not mean that you yourself are incapable of linguistic function. Or an even better example; if your computer was destroyed…or you went on vacation to the beach…that does not mean you’ve ceased to exist, you’ve only ended your conversation for a time; until you come back that is, and resurrect the conversation.
Liberty would not be destroyed just because a statue of Liberty is destroyed though.
There is more to the existence of a thing than existence of a thing which is its outer manifestation.
Not in the sense that you would call “die”. I don’t think Death has ever implied cessation of existence.
They stopped being involved with the Land of the Living, that is a fact at least. They became separated from their family and friends in the Land of the Living; that also is a fact. Death implies many things, and many hurts happen because of Death - but I don’t think any of it implies cessation of existence.
I don’t think you quite understand the nature of a spirit.
Where is your evidence that if we are not embodied, we’d be omnipresent? I don’t see how that follows.
For sake of argument; if they are embodied in some sort of form - then we too would have this form after our physical bodies are passed. If there is no body for them, then I see no reason at all why we should not be able to exist as they do without one.
No Angel is omnipresent by the way, the devils certainly aren’t.
As for scriptural evidence; are we not seated in Heavenly places? Are we not one with God? Is God not in us?
Where is your evidence that angels are embodied? Where is your evidence that without a body, they would be omnipresent?
The majority of people believe that colours exist, does that make the colourblind correct in denying they do?
If Christ were not preparing a place for us to be with him where he is in Heaven, he would have told us so.
I can’t help that you only read Scripture through Materialist eyes. You’ve denied Samuel as being just a vision, or an outright demonic impersonation. Denied Elijah and Moses on the mount of Transfiguration as just being visions, and denied the Souls under the altar as being just symbolic. You would probably deny or explain away these verses as well;
And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
(1Kings 17:21-22)
And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
(Luke 8:54-55)
Evidence I provide for disembodied, or rather; post-mortem existence, you tend to explain away as being mere fancy, or else you deny it outright, or you reterm or redefine the terms, such as spirit or soul.
In other words any evidence I present tends to fall on hard ground, it doesn’t grow.
The human is God’s child. The dog and ape is not.
This is irrelevant however to my point. Just because man has a transcendent nature doesn’t mean he has to be omnipotent (be God) in order to be in the image of God any more than being immoral strips him of that imageness at all.
Morality, self-awareness, rationality, these are not the only attributes of being made in God’s image.
It would be worse. God would be repugnant and completely alien to me.
I wouldn’t call him God, I’d wonder where God went and why this imposter sits in his place.
Again, I can’t help your ability to see.
To be in the presence of God, embodied or not; is never “not best”. To be in the presence of God both embodied and not embodied - is to have the best at all times.
You have no idea what it is even like. It feels to me almost as if you trust your embodiment for your comfort more than your God.
I would say it is because they are not his children, but His pets also.
As for rationality, self-awareness, and morality; I am inclined to think even animals have them. Their intelligence might be lower, and they might not be civilised, but I don’t think they are “dumb” or “blind” to themselves, or even to wrong when they are taught the difference.
Man was not “moral” in the Garden of Eden. They had no concept of it, they didn’t know the difference between Good and Evil - it was only after partaking of the fruit which gave them their knowing via experiencing disobedience and learning the difference that Death even became an issue to begin with.
Again with scripture, I can’t help your sight. But for being “in Christ” not entailing existential continuance; that to me is to deny Life, and his power to give and maintain it; at the very least it lessens or diminishes it and confines it to bodily existence.
Evidence of my earlier point. You don’t believe this spirit is a real spirit, and so you redefine the term and redefine the passage as fanciful.
I don’t think you understand the nature of a spirit. And I myself never said that a “disembodied” person (regarding the body of dust) is “intangible”.
I think that is an incorrect interpretation caused by misunderstanding on your part.
“All in their head”?
No demons or evil spirits at all? Just a broken brain?
As often as the Holy Spirit talks to you perhaps.
It also refers to an anthropomorphic entity. And most often that is the case when it is refered to as such.
That it can refer to that, doesn’t mean it isn’t a person that continues on after death, conscious, and existent.
Indescribable.
You aren’t looking at the context of the conversation between Lazarus’ sister and Jesus. The Resurrection is first and foremost; Jesus, before it is ever even the physical event of a bodily resurrection. The Life is Jesus, before it is ever the life in the resurrection.
The sister, like you seemingly, looks to the future event for Life (even if initiated by Jesus)…but not to Jesus Himself which you already have and he already has you.
That you are perplexed tells me you don’t yet understand the scope of what it means to be a living being in Christ, who is Life. When I say “more” I mean that there is more to the Resurrection than just an immortal, embodied, happy holy existence some time far off in the future; some event. I am saying that it is a whole universe of Life and Livingness to be tapped and enjoyed even in the now that ever increases through event, to event, to event, to Resurrection and beyond; things we cannot imagine.
In other words; there is more to the person’s ability to exist than the existence of the body; there is more the the Resurrection than the event. There is more to God than what we see.
I believe better, he’s killing Death even as we speak by usurping it with Life; with Himself, and on the Last Day when every last person is fully enveloped and permeated with Life, with God; and God is all in all - Death will then be defeated, having been consumed by the all consuming fire.
The same way you know that pi is 3.14 even though God doesn’t say so in the Bible.
Before Babylon, the Hebrews believed Yahweh had a wife named Asherah. Before Moses, the Hebrews worshiped Egyptian gods (and a golden calf when Moses was around). The Jews have never had a pure religion, even in Jacob’s day.
I don’t consider ancient theology to be pure simply because it is ancient; even if I saw “soulsleep” in the ancient theologies of the Jews. Which I do not.
If it where a falsehood that there was no afterlife (aside from a physical resurrection of the body); I am absolutely certain Christ would have made it a point to tell the Pharisees their error in this belief they held. He called out most of their other beliefs, but never this one. I take that as something to be considered, at least on my part.
Those Christians being the very vast minority, and in a very negative way.
I honestly don’t care much either way, I don’t believe in reincarnation and consider it just as gross and horrid as soulsleep, and ETC, and annihilation.
Christ never denies the thing I consider beautiful, therefore I see no reason why “I” should, unless given sufficient reason to do so - and that would be to eat dirt over bread in my opinion.
The same way that Atheists aren’t right just because they use the same expression of logic as you are right now to deny the existence of God.
“If the majority believe a thing, and are wrong in some cases, then they are wrong in all cases; the minority being right in some cases, are right in all cases”
Or to put it aptly;
“The majority believe this, I don’t because the majority are often wrong”
On God’s Immortal Soul yes.
I can’t help your experience, or your ability to see.
Your logic is faulty in not understanding what I mean by “God-dependent” if you think it is just bombast. Your logic is faulty anyway, considering that you’re arguing against what boils down to this (my argument);
“An Existence is dependent on its Existence to Exist”
This isn’t an internally consistent statement.
Your post translates to this;
“Nothing will ever separate you from God, but you will cease to exist for a time (which is to be separated from God)”
This statement alone voids the consistency before it even reaches “And then you’ll be resurrected and no longer separated from God”.
Cessation of existence is the very highest form of being separated from God. That it is eternal or temporary is irrelevant to the fact that separation occurred between the Existent God and his existing child, by reason of the child ceasing to exist.
I didn’t say the clone was a clone of me after I died when I asked the question. If the clone stands beside me; is he me? Am I him?
Unfortunately, all this response on your part does is tell me that “I am the sum of my parts and faculties”, which only goes back to the machine, construct issue.
No, they have their being in God, their transcendent nature is dependent on God to exist, not their bodies.
