[God] alone has immortality… I Timothy 6:16
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.
It’s called the kingdom of God. And while it is invisible it is much more than just a dream.
AMEN!! And as a part of the body of Christ we have put it on!
In a previous post you made a similar comment, to which I responded (How Universalism Has Impacted my Life):
And in an earlier post you wrote:
I responded (How Universalism Has Impacted my Life):
If Paul was already “absent from the body and present with the Lord” then he was no longer walking by faith but rather by sight (2 Cor 5:6-7). Is that what you believe?
I didn’t ask “has anyone responded” in this way - I asked, “couldn’t someone say in response…” So if while asking around you were to ask me, I’d say, “Of course they could.” 
I don’t believe 2 Cor 5:8 is nearly as obvious a proof-text for the view that the dead are conscious as you seem to think it is. Can it be understood in a way that is consistent with this view? Of course. Does it have to be understood in this way? I don’t think so.
I was raised a Presbyterian and believed in the immortality of the soul for most of my life, and (if I’m remembering correctly) didn’t come to question this doctrine until at least a couple of years after I became a believer in UR. There was certainly a transitional period where I wasn’t wholly convinced either way; while I began to see the general tenor of Scripture as strongly suggesting that the dead are not conscious, there were still certain texts that made me hesitant to fully embrace the views I have come to hold. But I attribute my hesitancy to the bias with which I was raised; because of what I was taught from childhood, I assumed certain things and naturally read them into the texts that I perceived to be problematic for the doctrine of “soul sleep.” But 2 Cor 5:6-9 was never considered by me to be a particularly strong proof-text for the idea that the dead are conscious, since the context is so clearly the resurrection of the dead (2 Cor 4:13-14; 5:1-5), which is elsewhere revealed to be a future event for all who are dead (1 Cor 15:21-28; 50-55; 1 Thess 4:13-18, etc.). While I could see how Paul’s words could be understood in a way that was consistent with the view that the dead are conscious, I didn’t think his words necessarily demanded such an interpretation.
While Paul was torn between remaining in the flesh (remaining alive) or “departing” (i.e., from this mortal existence), death was, I believe, considered by Paul to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. Death in itself was not at all desirable to Paul; it was that future state of existence into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him, that he longed for.
Agreed!
I agree that Paul is not talking about physical death or post-mortem realities in Rom 8:9-11, as I made clear in one of my previous responses to you. I also believe you’re mistaken for thinking that Paul is talking about the same subject in Rom 8:9-11 as he’s talking about in 2 Cor 5:1-5.
Does anything you say above have anything to do with physical death or post-mortem realities? Just wondering.
Paul says we are to know NO MAN after the flesh, not even Christ. (2 Cor 5:16)
If all we know of Christ is the Word “made flesh”, a “man” from Nazareth, then we do not know Christ. We only know Jesus.
Christ is more than “the Word made flesh”, a “man” manifest into this physical world, put to physical death on a physical cross, laid in a physical grave, resurrected physically the third day, seen in a physical body of flesh and bones before ascending to the Father, where He sits on a throne in that same physical body, even to this day.
Christ IS SPIRIT and it is by THE SPIRIT OF GOD that we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.
That “resurrection” has nothing at all to do with the natural body which came from DUST (born of CORRUPTIBLE SEED) and RETURNS TO DUST.
That which is born of the flesh IS FLESH and that which is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.
It is OUR SPIRIT that God bears witness to. (Rom 8:16)
It is THE SPIRIT that is quickened. (John 6:63)
God is the Father OF SPIRITS. (Heb 12:9)
We are SPIRITS IN PRISON. (1 Pet 3:19)
It is THE SPIRIT that is SAVED in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor 5:5)
According to Heb 12:22-24, we have come unto ZION, and unto THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to AN INNUMERABLE COMPANY OF ANGELS, to the GENERAL ASSEMBLY, and TO GOD the Judge of all, and to THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT, and to Jesus THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT, and to THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING, THAT SPEAKETH BETTER THINGS than that of Abel.
Because it says: “Father FORGIVE THEM, for THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”. Making intercession for Cain (the first/natural/carnal man who murdered his brother, Abel, the second/spiritual/heavenly man) of whom God asks: “What hast thou done?”
It is not “the types” that are important, it is the reality of which those types are “shadows” that is important. We do not travel to a temple and sacrifice animals upon an alter because those things were not the reality; they were the figures, the types, the shadows of the true. We do not keep the Feasts of the Lord, as did the Jews, because those things were not the reality; they were the figures, the types, the shadows of the true. We don’t abstain from eating unclean meats or mixing fabrics, etc, because those things were not the reality; they were the figures, the types, the shadows of the true.
I will not call this world and all that is in it, all that can be seen and touched and known by the natural man, “the reality” and the rest “a dream world”.
GOD IS SPIRIT! He is NOT OF THIS WORLD. Neither is Christ. So while we are “in this world” we are not “of this world” either. Not if we have been born OF GOD. For THE SECOND MAN (that NEW MAN, that NEW CREATION created IN CHRIST) “is” THE LORD FROM HEAVEN. (1 Cor 15:47)
Shall we, then, continue to identify ourselves WITH ADAM?
Are you “in Adam” or are you “in Christ”?
My hope is that I am “in Christ” and He in me!
If that’s “spiritualizing” the scriptures too much or living in “a dream world”, then so be it. It’s a beautiful world. 
Those who think it’s not real should come visit it sometime. 
Which is why I said we are just repeating the same things over and over again and making no headway.
That’s not what I said.
And Paul says that if our earthly body were dissolved that we know WE HAVE that house not made with hands reserved for us in the heavens. He didn’t say we had to “wait” until sometime (perhaps much later) to “put it on”.
And he is talking about the difference between A CHILD (that which IN PART, the EARNEST/FIRST-FRUITS of the spirit) and A SON (KNOWING, even as we are KNOWN, face to face, the adoption OF SONS).
That is why I asked you if you understand the difference.
Absolutely!
I stand by my answer. I do not believe that anyone who does not already believe in soul sleep would read that passage that way. I did not say that it cannot be read that way; it obviously is - by those who believe in soul sleep. But I do not believe that anyone else would “naturally” see it that way given the use of the conjuction “and” which joins together the two statements being made… absent from the body AND present with the Lord.
And I believe that “absent from the body AND present with Lord” strongly demands such an interpretation. I was merely content to argue that “and” does not mean “is to be” when I believed in soul sleep and “had” to see that passage another way in order for what I believed to be “true”. But this is not the only passage that I feel is a “problem” for the doctrine of soul sleep - which I had very little trouble embracing once I studied it. I actually had a much harder time giving it up than taking it up - for I thought I had searched out the whole matter, studied every relevant passage. And for awhile not a single passage presented to me or a single question asked of me could shake my belief in it… but the days started coming when that was no longer the case. And over time, as I began to see who “the dead” actually are and what (and WHO) “the resurrection of the dead” is, I was “forced” to give that doctrine up as "false’ and have had no reason given to me to take it up again. I am not my natural body. And I do not believe that it will ever be “resurrected from the dead”. I believe it will return to dust.
However you reason with it, Paul said his “desire” was TO DEPART. If he knew that He would not “be with Lord” immediately upon departing (even if it would be his next conscioius expereince) then I can hardly imagine him being “torn” between departing and remaining when he also knew that it was more needful for them that he remain.
I have no problem with you disagreeing. I’ve shared my reasons why I see it as I do. all are free to either take them or leave them.
It has to do with who it is that is being “clothed” with immortality. And, as I see it, it isn’t corpses in physical graves. And, yes, it is relevant to physical death (not required) and post-mortem realities (those who have put on immortality cannot die, even if their natural body has yet to).
2 Corinthians 5
8 we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body [this present mortal body],* and to be present with the lord * [in our immortal resurrected body]. King James
4 for we that are in this tabernacle [this present mortal body] do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed [exist as a disembodied spirit], but clothed upon [with the immortal resurrected body], that mortality might be swallowed up of life. King James
Note: My clarification in brackets; not part of the text
Paul shows that one can be “caught up to paradise” without physically dying. In such an instance, Paul said he did not even know whether it was “in the body” or “out of the body”, only God knows. So I have no propblem seeing that one can be “absent from the body” AND “present with the Lord” without having to phyiscally die. Or that this would be our “preference”… to be walking “in the spirit” (with the Lord) rather than walking “in the flesh” (with the world).
It is still “this mortal” that is “putting on” immortality (that only Christ has) and we do so by being “clothed upon” (with Christ), not by being “unclothed” (dying physically). And, according to Paul, “as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27)
If we have “put on” Christ, then we have “put on” immortality and death has been swallowed up of life.
If we have been raised with him (Col 2:12) and translated into His kingdom (Col 1;13), then we are “children of the resurrection”. (Luke 20:36)
Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world [AGE = LAW = CHILD] marry, and are given in marriage:
Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (AGE = GRACE = SON], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: [for they are espoused TO CHRIST]
Luke 20:36 Neither can [present tense] they die [present tense] any more: for they are [present tense] equal unto the angels [those who ASCEND AND DESCEND UPON THE SON OF MAN]; and are [present tense] the children [SONS] of God, being [present tense] the children [SONS] of the resurrection.
Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised [present tense], even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth [present tense] the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
The dead are being raised! By the faith of Christ. By our being found in Him. By being baptized into HIs death (= the second death) and having part in His resurerction (= the first resurrection).
Jesus said that HE IS the resurrection and the life and those who believe, though they WERE DEAD, yet shall THEY LIVE. And those who live and believe SHALL NEVER DIE.
Believest thou this?
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living Soul.
I do not believe the soul exists separate from body and spirit. I do not believe the spirit is the soul, nor do I believe the body is the soul. I believe that Body+Spirit = Living Soul. I believe upon physical death, just as Jesus said and the Scriptures state, the graves of those who died previous to the Resurrection of the Dead, came back to life and entered into the Kingdom of Heaven. Since then, those who died have been resurrected in a spiritual body not a natural one.
1 Corinthians 15:12-21 If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Matthew 25:51-53 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Ephesians 4:9-9
“This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took with him many captives and gave gifts to his people.” (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
1 Corinthians 15:42-49 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. **The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. **As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
This is what the Lord told me when I asked. He said that the DEAD ARE ALREADY RAISED. The moment we die physically, since the Resurrection, we too are also raised. We don’t precede those who physically died because they are ALREADY RAISED. **The Resurrection of the Dead was, is and is to come. ** That is why we look forward to His return, but our hope in Christ is not for this present life, but in the Resurrection of the Dead.
John 14:2-3 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.
Yes, that draws out problems in people’s minds about then what is the point of living, but that is the same excuses that come up when we recognized that all are saved.
- The Soul is BODY + SPIRIT. No soul exists without a body, no soul exists without the Spirit.
- The moment the body dies, since the Resurrection of the Dead and afterwards, The soul has been raised to life in the Resurrection of the Dead.
- The Soul is sown a natural body, but it is raised a spiritual body.
- The trumpet sounds the day we physically die and He returns to receive you to Himself, that where He is presently, there you will also be!
Amen!
“Immortality” is an attribute of God because he cannot and will not cease to be existentially alive. But according to Scripture, human beings/individuals are not immortal but mortal, and we won’t “put on immortality” until the dead are raised and the living are changed at the “last trumpet.” You may not like the fact that we are not presently immortal like God is, but it’s a fact nonetheless. To say we are immortal now is contrary to fact and undermines the truth of the resurrection.
Where are we told in Scripture that “the child returns to God” at death? In 1 Kings 17:21 (ESV) we read that after the widow’s child died, Elijah “stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the LORD, 'O LORD my God, let this child’s life (nephesh) come into him again.” We then read (v. 22), “And the LORD listened to the voice of Elijah. And the life (nephesh) of the child came into him again, and he revived.” Here the word nephesh (often rendered “soul”) undoubtedly carries the same meaning as the word ruach (often rendered “spirit”) in Ps. 146:4 and elsewhere. According to these verses, did the widow’s child leave his body when he died, or did the child’s nephesh (i.e., his “soul” or life) leave the child? Obviously, the latter. When Elijah lay on top of the child and prayed to God, the “child” hadn’t begun a disembodied journey to heaven; rather, the “child” was dead and unconscious, and was resting exactly where his dead body was resting. And why’s this? Answer: because like all human beings, the child was constituted by his physical body. When the child’s nephesh left his body and his body died, the child died and was “lifeless.” When the child’s nephesh re-entered his body and his body was reanimated, the child “came back to life.”
And where are we told that “the spirit goes on to dwell in the mansions or rooms prepared for them in Christ’s Father’s house?” Why do you equate the spirit of man that returns to God who gave it as the man himself when Scripture says it is the man/individual (i.e., the human being to whom personal pronouns refer) who dies and returns to the dust? Was God talking to a spirit that was going to leave Adam’s body at death when he said, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return?” To what does the “your” and the “you” in the above verse refer? A physical, bodily being named “Adam” or a “spirit” that left Adam’s body at death? If “Adam” is a spirit rather than a personal being constituted by a physical body, then “Adam” neither died nor returned to the dust. If man is a spirit, why did the Psalmist write concerning man, “When his breath (ruach) departs he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish” (146:4)? To what do the personal pronouns “his” and “he” refer in this verse? A physical, bodily being or a “spirit?” According to Luke, before Stephen “fell asleep” (i.e., died) he prayed," “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” A few verses later Luke informs us that “devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him” (Acts 8:2). What does the name “Stephen” and the personal pronoun “him” refer to in this verse? Did Luke have in mind a “disembodied spirit?”
Where did you learn that “the Resurrection consummates on the Earth what has already happened in the Father’s house” and “in the Resurrection the Earth becomes the Father’s house?” At the resurrection, both those who are dead and those who will still be alive will be caught up from the earth into the clouds, and will be taken to where Christ went at his ascension (i.e., heaven). This is after “death, the last enemy” has been “destroyed.” But during the age of the “new heaven and new earth,” Christ reigns in the New Jerusalem alongside God (Rev 22:1; cf. 11:15). But Christ is to reign until he has subjected all people to himself and destroyed death (which takes place at the “last trumpet”). After this, Christ is to deliver the kingdom to God (1 Cor 15:24), thereby making God the sole ruler over his kingdom.
It is when the “last trumpet” sounds - and not before - that mankind will be “imperishable” and “immortal.” At least, that’s what I believe God has chosen to reveal to us. Mortals will become immortal and the dead will become imperishable “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” The “death” that believers will not and cannot die while they abide in Christ is not the “death” that is “swallowed up in victory” at the sounding of the “last trumpet.” It is the “death” that Adam died on the day he sinned, and which Paul says he and those to whom he wrote were suffering before they heard and believed the gospel. Neither this “death” nor its opposite state has anything to do with whether or not we are existentially dead or alive after physical death. If when Christ said, “Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall not die for the age” he meant that those who believed on him would not existentially die, then it would mean that before a person believes on him they are exposed to existential death and will existentially die if they don’t believe on him! Is this what you believe, Lefein? If it’s not, then your view is not internally consistent. And since you believe that all people are by virtue of creation immortal beings and that no being made in the image of God can existentially die, then the “death” that Christ has in view (which believers avoid) can’t refer to “existential death.” It simply wouldn’t be in view. And if that’s the case, then the “life” that is the opposite of this state of “death” can’t refer to “existential life.” Neither existential death nor existential life would be in view.
We will never cease to be the objects of God’s love. Not even a temporary cessation of existence can separate us from God’s love. We are no more separated from God’s love after we cease to exist than we were separated from God’s love before we came into existence. While I realize you said that you don’t fear non-existence, the above words seem to betray a fear that a cessation of existence would mean that we have been separated from God’s love. But you need not fear that a cessation of existence would mean we have been “plucked from God’s hands.” Christ is Lord of both the dead and the living. This presupposes, of course, that some are dead and in need of being restored to a living existence (i.e., existential life), and that some are alive and aren’t yet in need of being restored to a living existence.
You don’t have to redefine “death” to mean something other than a loss of existential life in order to believe that it can’t separate us from God’s love.
That’s like saying, “If God gives you life and breath, he will never take that life and breath away from you.” But that’s exactly what happens at death; our life and breath are taken from us. We exist as living beings as long as God’s breath is in our nostrils. When God’s breath leaves us, we cease to exist as living beings. But does this mean God stops loving us? Nope. God still loves us just as much as he did before he brought us into existence.
We were created to exist as physical, embodied beings. If we cease to exist as physical, embodied beings even for a moment, then it could be said that “Existence is not in us, and did not uphold us because we ceased to exist as physical, embodied beings.” But so what? God still loves us, and will restore us to a physical, embodied existence in his time so that we may “always be with the Lord.”
The hope that is written on my heart is that, through Christ, God is going to restore me and everyone who dies to a living existence at the resurrection of the dead. It is this hope to which I was “born again” and in which I was saved, not the “hope” that I will never cease to exist as a living being. That’s not a hope that Scripture reveals or sanctions. It’s a false hope that undermines the truth of the resurrection. When Paul was seeking to give encouragement to the Thessalonians so that they might not “grieve as others do who have no hope,” did he tell them that they possessed or were “immortal souls” and that they would never cease to exist? No; he reminded them of the resurrection of the dead and then gave them additional information on what is going to happen when this event takes place.
Your view undermines the true and living hope that is supposed to be within the believer, and I can’t help but reject it as such.
I believe this, too. But not being separated from the love of God has nothing to do with not being temporarily separated from a living, conscious existence. God knew and loved us before we came into existence and became conscious, and he will know and love while when we have temporarily ceased to exist as living, conscious beings.
According to Scripture, it is the human person - the individual - who is said to sleep. For example, in Matthew 27:52 the Gospel writer records that “…many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.” This verse alone stand at odds with your assertion that it is merely our bodies that are asleep in the grave while we - the persons/individuals - are not. According to Matthew, it is not merely the bodies of the saints, but the saints themselves who are depicted as having “fallen asleep.” Evidently, the saints were just as “asleep” as you think their bodies were.
Again, that’s like saying, “To tell me that I shall cease to have God’s breath in me, is to deny that God’s breath is in me at all, or that I am a living soul at all.” But of course, that’s not true. Unless you are among those who will still be alive at Christ’s coming to raise the dead, God’s “breath” is one day going to depart from you, and you will begin to return to the elements from which you were made. You will cease to be a living, conscious being. But you will not be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus; he will restore to you your life and consciousness when you are raised from the dead, and you will “always be with the Lord.”
Nowhere does Scripture ascribe to the words translated “soul” and “spirit” the meaning you have ascribed to them. The “spirit” or “breath of life” that God breathed into Adam to make him a “living soul” was life, and his life left him at death and returned to God who gave it, just as it will leave all people at death. But God didn’t stop loving Adam, even after his life departed from him and he returned to the dust. Nor will he cease loving you.
Both man and beast have “the same spirit” and are alike “living souls.” Are the beasts God’s offspring too? Are they “spirit” as well?
Lefein, while your view is clothed in lofty and heartfelt language, it is, I believe, about as true and Scriptural as reincarnation.
We are beings constituted by a physical body and are alive as long as our body is alive. When our body dies, we die along with it. Consciousness is tied to life; it cannot be separated from it. So no, our life and consciousness doesn’t continue after our body dies.
A better analogy would be this: our mind is like the music that is produced as a pianist plays a piano. When the musician stops playing, the music stops and is no more until the musician resumes playing. When the brain stops functioning and the life departs from the body, the mind is no more until the life returns and the brain starts functioning again.
So what? Liberty is conceptual; it is not an actual entity or substance. Just as “liberty” wouldn’t be destroyed just because the Statue of Liberty was destroyed, we will continue to exist conceptually in the mind of God even after our body has been destroyed.
The “land of the living” is the land where living human beings exist. To be cut off from the “land of the living” is to be a dead human being. Those who are dead have ceased to exist as living beings, and are thus existentially dead. And you have no evidence that consciousness continues after human life ends.
Ditto.
To be embodied is, I believe, to be constituted by some kind of finite, spatially extended matter/substance. It is this that “confines” or “localizes” us to one place at a time. This gives us “boundaries” and allows us to be separate from everything else, so that everything is not an extension of us and we have a separate identity. If God is like the ocean, our body can be thought of as functioning like a bubble in the ocean. If we were not constituted by some sort of finite, spatially extended matter/substance I can’t help but conclude that we would either exist in no place at all or we’d exist in every possible place, as many believe God does.
Having said that, I’ve speculated that, in relation to his creation, there may even be a sense in which God does not personally and mentally exist in every possible place. If in relation to his creation God is not in some sense “localized” but rather exists in every possible place and interpenetrates all of his creation, then it would seem to follow that his mind exists in every possible place and interpenetrates all of his creation. If (as Panentheism asserts) the universe is “in God” and God’s mind is thus everywhere present in the universe, then his mind would have no boundaries and no separate existence from every other mind. If everything was “in God” and God existed in every possible place, it seems that everything would be an extension of himself and his mind. And how could we exist as separate entities and have separate identities if God is everywhere present, and his mind is not localized and without boundaries? I’ve speculated that God might choose to manifest himself in a localized form in order to interact with his finite creation, but perhaps it is necessary for God to “localize” his mind/consciousness in some sort of embodied form in order for his mind to be separate from what he wants and chooses to create. That is, perhaps in choosing to bring “not-God” into existence God necessarily chooses to become (at least insofar as he relates to his creation) localized and embodied, restricting “part” of himself to one place at a time. This localization of his mind and embodiment of his person need not mean that a limit or restriction has been placed on God’s knowledge, or on his power and influence over what he creates. And even if God were, in some sense, embodied and localized to one place in relation to his creation, there would still be a sense in which God would remain everywhere present and have power and influence over everything he creates. His “centre of consciousness” would simply not be everywhere present.
How does this follow? Angels are not “disembodied” beings; as far as we know, they’ve always been in the same form they exist in now. If, after we die, we exist in the same immortal form as the angels do, wouldn’t we be “equal to angels” after death? That is, wouldn’t that which Jesus said would be true of us after the resurrection instead be true of us “after our physical bodies are passed?” Once again, your view seems to undermine the truth of the resurrection.
If the angelic being that wrestled with Jacob had a body when they were wrestling, what makes you think it exists without a body?
Of course they aren’t; angels are localized beings who can only be in one place at one time.
In what sense are we “seated in Heavenly places?” Are you literally on earth and literally in heaven at the same time? Is that how you understand Paul in Ephesians? If so, what’s it like existing in two places at once? Unless your experience is radically different from mine, I would guess that it doesn’t feel all that different from existing in only one place at once (but of course I don’t believe Paul is saying we are actually in two or more places at once; he’s using figurative imagery to convey the idea that, in Christ, we have been given great authority and privileges).
To be “embodied” is, I believe, to be constituted and localized by some sort of matter/substance. If Jacob wrestled with an angel, and if John fell at the feet of an angel, then it would seem that angels are constituted and localized by some sort of tangible matter/substance. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If something looks like a body and functions like a body and feels like a body, then it probably is a body.
That colours exist is something we can know by experience and observation. That the dead are conscious, or that we possess (or are) “immortal souls,” is not. There’s a big difference between believing that colours exist and believing that something only God could reveal to us exists. If God hasn’t revealed it to us, we have no good reason to believe something exists if our experience and observation does not inform us that it does.
Right. Christ told us he would come again and take us to himself, so that we may be where he is in Heaven. And when will this be, Lefein? Is it when we die or when “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God”? Does the Lord come for us to take us where he is, or do we float away in a disembodied state to heaven after we die and go to him?
(To be continued when I have more time)
Aaron, I am essentially in agreement with you concerning human mortality and our hope in the resurrection.
I am wondering what your thinking is concerning the incarnation of Christ. Christ pre-existed as the Son of God. Was the pre-existing Son of God pure spirit, or did He possess a spirit body. If the former, then it would seem that pure spirit could become “constituted” as you say, in or with the body which Mary bore. If the latter, how could that spirit body become a human body? Also, when Jesus died, did He cease to exist prior to His resurrection? Or did He “become a life-giving spirit”, existing apart from a body of any kind.
I have struggled with these questions in view of my foundation of understanding (nearly identical to yours) and so for some time I have wanted to ask these questions of another who sees mortality and immortality as I do.
It almost seems to me Aaron, that you are far more afraid of being in the presence of God without your physical body between you and Him, than I am of being separated from Him by the thorough gulf of Existence vs. Non-existence.
It is very simple, I refuse to limit God’s work and Life-giving as being relegated to a physical body, or a physical event far flung into the future; I refuse to limit God’s work to the material, and I refuse to limit my God-given existence to the material expression of it. My belief that I will never, by no means whatsoever be wholly separated from God on my part or on His part; by existence/non-existence or otherwise; does not undermine the Resurrection, neither does it undermine the hope of Christians. My view is that The Living are made alive by Life, who are alive now and will be made more alive in the ‘aions’ to come, and that those who are size=80[/size]“dead” will be made alive also.
[size=80]a; Which I do not believe is cessation of existence, or those who have ceased to exist. The prodigal son did not ‘cease to exist’, when he was ‘dead to his father’ and having come home was ‘alive again’. He was spending his time in the swine trough when he was ‘dead’.[/size]
Your arguments that my view undermines this or that belief or hope is nothing new. I’m sure many Eternal Damnationalists have said that to Universalists when they talk about the greater hope; “Your view undermines the hope of believers”. But like the Universalist I can return the sentiment; “Your view undermines the greater hope of believers.”
No matter how much you say otherwise, cessation of an existence is separation. You can’t get any further from the I AM than to “not-be”. And as for the argument that one was not separated from God before they existed; I’d be more inclined to believe in pre-existence than I am of cessation of existence. I’d also be inclined to wonder if they were not indeed separated from God, as per the traditional view of Salvation, but that certainly never involved cessation of existence.
If all of your hope rests in being physically embodied, you can have it. I’ll believe what I am convinced is better, hope better, and receive better, which is not what you insist to be better for me, neither your interpretations, nor your theology. I’ll go to Heaven, come back again, and be resurrected.
Our views are far too polarised on this issue to come to any concise compromise. You’d have me literally cease to exist. I’d have you exist in the presence of God continuously and have the resurrection too. It is no wonder I prefer the latter idea.
I know you weren’t speaking to me, but I just comment if I can.
There is no life existing apart from a body of any kind. Everything that lives, has a body and our hope is in the Resurrection of the Dead. Our hope is in the resurrection of the dead, because presently we live in a physical mortal body. Our hope is in the realization that there is a spiritual immortal body for us.
Saying this, there is! And it has already happened and so we look forward now to life, not death since all have been Baptized and Buried in His Death and All are now raised in His Life (The Ressurection).
What we need to realize is That What Was, Is, and Is to come. Time is not a restriction of when the resurrection is because those who have gone before us have already been risen, just as He is risen and we too who are presently alive will also be changed because God is not the God of the dead but of the living. So even when we shed this physical mortal body, we are in a twinkling of an eye resurrected in an immortal spirital body.
Sorry, SotW, but your response doesn’t help me at all with my question. Your position makes even less sense to me than that of rline. Your “resurrection” is not he resurrection of which I read in the New Testament.
You have said in your post above,“There is no life existing apart from a body of any kind.” What about the life of God the Father? Does the Father have a body? Those beings which have bodies, animals, people, angels, and the resurrected Christ are visible. Is the Father visible?
Here are the scriptural answers to my questions:
John 4:24 God is spirit
1 Timothy 1:17 To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
If God is spirit, that suggests He is bodiless — also the fact that He is invisible.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God…
Forgive me if I appear to have a tone in my writings. It is unconsciously there and I have been working to rid myself of it for a long time. So again sorry.
The new testament resurrection taught by many ‘Christians’ is from Roman Catholicism, and it got it’s understanding of the resurrection from it’s pagan roots. Specifically, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman understandings. Their resurrection requires the SAME dust body for a resurrection and that when this resurrection happens, those who are raised will be never die again. This is not the resurrection described by Paul, nor is this the resurrection Jesus speaks of. The Scriptures do not even speak of such an event. The Scriptures says dust returns to dust and that is where it stays. Paul says that the dust body remains dust but the soul is raised with a new spiritual body from heaven not earth. Jesus said He is the Resurrection of the Dead, and that He has gone to the Father to prepare our body.
Are you sure about that logic?
It doesn’t say he is bodiless, it says he is invisible.
In Him we live and move and have our being, as Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”
However, more pointed the fullness of God DOES live dwells in bodily form.
Colossians 2:8-10 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
We know God most definitely does have a house and it has been made throughout the Scripture, that house refers to the body in which the spirit dwells.
2 Corinthians 5:1-4
For we have known that if our earthly house of the tabernacle may be thrown down, a building from God we have, an house not made with hands – age-during – in the heavens, for also in this we groan, with our dwelling that is from heaven earnestly desiring to clothe ourselves, if so be that, having clothed ourselves, we shall not be found naked, for we also who are in the tabernacle do groan, being burdened, seeing we wish not to unclothe ourselves, but to clothe ourselves, that the mortal may be swallowed up of the life.
Just like universalism changed the way we though about salvation, it also must change the way we look at the resurrection they are intrinsically entwined.
I believe the view of resurrection you have is not found in the New Testament, although many Christians still hold on to such a view, just as they still think 99.998% of the humanity is lost for eternity in burning fires which they have no escape or ‘salvation’
All that, and I could be wrong. All I know is that God said the key to understanding Universalism is to know the Resurrection. So since universalism, I have studied it to find out why and my conclusion is, the resurrection is not what we have been taught.
p.s. Forgive my spelling and grammar. I am a little tired today.
I don’t “only read Scripture through Materialist eyes.” Scripture confirms what my experience and observation leads me to believe. I believe one has to read a good bit into Scripture in order to get out of it the idea that the dead are conscious in a disembodied, immaterial state.
Moreover, matter and embodiment is considered good in God’s eyes, so believing that man is constituted by a physical body is hardly something to be ashamed of. And just because God is said to be “spirit” doesn’t mean he isn’t material in some sense. Perhaps God is made of matter in its highest - or most fundamental - form. “Spirit” need only be understood as referring to the fact that God is unseen but produces visible effects, since “spirit” refers to that which is unseen but has visible effects, or which manifests itself in a visible way (such as the wind, our life/vitality or our mind/feelings). But I don’t believe only in “matter.” Our thoughts and feelings (for example) are not material, but I believe they depend on organized matter for their existence.
I’ve not once claimed that Samuel is a demonic impersonation. Nor do I believe he was a vision. Perhaps you should read over my thoughts on this passage again: https://eu.ltcmp.net/t/only-a-few-find-it/162/1
It was Jesus himself who described what his disciples saw as being a “vision.”
Are you seriously accusing me of believing that something John describes in a book of symbols is symbolic? Really? That’s like accusing someone of believing that a water-spewing, seven-headed red dragon (Rev 12:3, 15) is “symbolic,” or that a talking altar (Rev 16:7) is “symbolic.”
In this passage the child’s “soul” is his “life,” not the child himself. It was the child’s life that “came into him again,” causing him to “revive.”
Who or what was Jesus talking to when he said, “Maid, arise?” Here’s a hint: it wasn’t the girl’s “spirit.” The girl’s spirit didn’t “arise.” The girl did. Her (the girl’s) spirit “came again” and then we’re told that “she (the girl) arose straightway.” Then Jesus commanded to give her (the girl) food. Your view makes nonsense of this verse and turns it on its head.
The word translated “spirit” means the same thing as the word translated “soul” above (i.e., “life”).
You mean “evidence” like the above two passages? According to you, the “soul” is the individual - the person. So let’s apply this to the first passage you provided by substituting “child” for “child’s soul”:
“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 come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the child came into him again, and he revived.”
Like many of your responses, this one is highly evasive. What is it that makes the human “God’s child” rather than the dog or ape?
How is what I said irrelevant to the specific comment to which I was responding? You had said:
I think what I said is highly relevant to your point expressed above.
And again, why does a man have to have a “transcendent nature” (i.e., an “immortal soul”) in order to bear God’s image rather than be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, unable to lie, etc.? Why is being a rational, self-aware being with a moral nature not enough? And if animals have “transcendent natures” (i.e., immortal souls) as well as human beings, how is it that they don’t bear God’s image as well?
See above.
I’m sorry you feel this way. I believe the god of immortal soul-ism is just as much an “imposter” as the god of reincarnation.
If being in the presence of God in a disembodied state is “best” then how is being embodied “ideal?” You yourself have said that it is.
Do you? Is that why you think being disembodied is equally “best” compared to being embodied?
Well then I wouldn’t trust your feelings on this. Like Paul, I have “a hope in God…that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” This is where my “comfort” comes from. I trust that God is going to restore me and everyone else to a living, embodied existence at the resurrection of the dead, not that he created me and everyone else with an “immortal soul” that goes to heaven at death.
Why are they not his children too? Don’t they bear God’s image in the sense that you think is more important than “merely” having rational self-awareness and a moral nature?
So what is the difference between a human and an animal, according to your view? According to you, both humans and animals have transcendent natures/immortal souls, and we both have rationality, self-awareness and morality. Why don’t animals bear God’s image as human beings do?
Did Adam make a moral choice when he partook of the fruit? And if he didn’t, did he have the created capacity for morality before he partook of the fruit?
Do you believe there was a personal being hanging out in the mouths of every one of these prophets of Ahab?
How do you define “tangible?”
And I think your response fails to in any way substantiate your position.
I don’t think the expression “broken brain” is the most appropriate way to speak of mental illness, but okay.
-
I don’t think the Holy Spirit is a “disembodied being” or a personal, self-aware being (unless by “Holy Spirit” you mean “the Father,” who is said to be “spirit”). But that’s another discussion.
-
How often do you think John’s readers encountered and received messages from evil disembodied beings?
You seem to be saying that when the word “spirit” is referred to as an anthropomorphic entity it is most often the case that it refers to an anthropomorphic entity. Is that correct?
-
If “spirit” can refer to the mental/emotional aspect of a person’s nature, then it wouldn’t be identical to the person. That is, it wouldn’t be the person in their totality, or define them in the fullest and most complete sense. You are more than the mental/emotional aspect of your nature. It’s only a part of who you are. And to say it’s more essential to who you are than being embodied is, I believe, to beg the question.
-
Why do you think we even have a brain if we can think just as well without it?
-
When Paul refers to the “spirit of your minds” do you think “spirit” means “a person that continues on after death, conscious and existent?” If not, why not? And if so (i.e., if the “spirit of our minds” is a conscious, self-aware person), wouldn’t that mean that a conscious self-aware person has a conscious self-aware person in their mind?
Is there no possible way for you to even begin to explain what you’re talking about, then?
Jesus says he is the resurrection and the life because he is the one to whom God has given the power and authority to restore the dead to life, whether the “death” be a death in sin, or physical/existential death. I think you’re reading your own ideas into the “conversation between Lazarus’ sister and Jesus.”
It’s true that Martha was only thinking of the future event when her brother would be raised up, as Jesus had promised all would be on the “last day” (e.g., John 6:39). But Jesus doesn’t correct her on this, he simply seeks to broaden her understanding of what it means for us to “live,” and puts the emphasis on himself. He said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” By this he was talking about what he was just about to do for Lazarus. But after Martha affirms her faith in what Jesus had spoken of previously, Jesus then takes it even further and applies this principle of himself as life-giver to not only our existential life after physical death but to the spiritual life of the believer in this present existence. In essence Jesus is saying that not only will he restore the existentially dead to existential life (as he was about to do for Lazarus), but that those who believe on him will enjoy a life that they couldn’t enjoy otherwise, even while existentially alive.
I thought I made it pretty clear that I believed Jesus was not only talking about a future, embodied life in these verses but also a spiritual life to be experienced in the present by those who believe on him. You write as if I have completely neglected this, which makes discussing this topic with you quite frustrating. This “life” that believers receive is, I believe, the “life more abundant” that Jesus speaks of elsewhere, and which Paul refers to as “newness of life.” But you seem to have this confused idea that the “life” that believers enjoy now, in this present existence, has something to do with their being existentially alive after they physically die. This is a mistake.
As for the resurrection on the last day (when all who die in Adam - both just and unjust - will be made alive in Christ), I believe all people - not just those who believe on Christ in this life - will be happier than either of us can possibly imagine.
How do you get this out of John 11?
Again, I believe Jesus calls himself the resurrection and the life because he has been given the power and authority to restore the dead to life, whether they are physically/existentially dead or dead in sins and estranged from God. I’m still not sure what you’re trying to argue against when you tell me that “there is more to the Resurrection than the event.” Are you trying to say that I don’t think believers can enjoy spiritual life now? Are you trying to say that I don’t think Jesus is the one who restores the dead to life? Are you trying to say that my view of how happy we’ll be after the resurrection is in some way deficient?
What “death” do you think Christ is “killing” even as we speak? Is it existential death? According to your view that can’t be, because it would mean that some are existentially dead and in need of being given existential life. But no human being (or even animal) can, according to your view, existentially die, because they are by virtue of creation “immortal souls.”
Is it physical death? According to your view, this can’t be because people are physically dying every day, and the resurrection of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15 is still future. According to Paul, death will be “swallowed up in victory” when the “last trumpet” sounds and the dead are raised imperishable and the living are changed into immortal beings.
Is it the kind of “death” to which Paul refers in Rom 8:6, Eph 2:1 and elsewhere (i.e., being dead in our trespasses and sins)? According to your view, this is the only death that Christ can be “killing” even as we speak. But even then, this “death” is only being “killed” in the lives of those who believe on Christ, and those who are presently believing on Christ are comparatively few in number. And you have no evidence that those who have physically died can believe on Christ or do anything except return to the dust from which human beings were made.
Knowing that pi is 3.14 doesn’t require a special revelation from God; knowing that we have an “immortal soul” and that the dead are conscious in a disembodied state most certainly does.
How is this supposed to be an objection to anything I’ve said? Have I ever argued that the Jews had a “pure religion?” No; I said that to whatever extent the Jewish people 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), their beliefs were far superior to those of the pagans.
Again, when have I argued that ancient theology was “pure” simply because it was ancient? I’m pretty sure I’ve said that the belief that the dead are conscious is quite ancient. It’s been believed by human beings for perhaps as long as human beings have foolishly chosen to believe that which God has not revealed to man.
Did Christ make it a point to tell the Pharisees their error in believing that some people will be detained in an everlasting prison and subject to eternal torment? According to Josephus, the view of the Pharisees was that “under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as [people] have lived virtuously or according to vice in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison (eirgmon aidion), but that the former shall have power to revive and live again” (D. Ant. 18.14-15). And in another work, Josephus states that the Pharisees believed that the souls of the wicked would be “subject to eternal torment (aidios timoria).” (B. War 2.162-64) Did Christ ever explicitly correct them on this point? Did he ever say, “You believe that some people will be detained in an everlasting prison under the earth and subject to eternal punishment, but I say to you, there is no such place of eternal confinement or punishment. You are quite wrong.” What about the doctrine of pre-existence/reincarnation? This seems to be presupposed in the question that the disciples asked Jesus in John 9:2. But Jesus doesn’t explicitly and directly correct them on this by telling them that people can’t sin before they are born, and that the very idea that people can is a falsehood; he simply tells them that this wasn’t the reason the man was born blind. As far as the disciples knew, the blind man could still have been a sinner before he was born; according to Jesus, the man’s being born blind simply wasn’t a consequence of it. Jesus didn’t say otherwise, because it simply wasn’t part of his mission to directly and explicitly challenge and correct every false idea held by the Jews in his day, whether they were held by the religious leaders or his own disciples.
-
How do you know those Christians who denied that man has an “immortal soul” were in a “very vast minority” when the “earthly church Fathers” wrote?
-
Does being in a minority mean that one is mistaken? Was Martin Luther further from the truth because he was in a minority in his day (he is commonly thought to have believed in “soul sleep,” btw)? How about those Christians who were a part of the “Radical Reformation” (e.g., the Anabaptists)? Were they further from the truth than the rest of their Protestant and Catholic brethren, who made up the majority of Christians? Are believers in UR today further from the truth because they are (and have been for most of Christian history) a minority among Christians?
-
What do you mean by “and in a very negative way?”
Once again, your response is evasive. The fact that you consider my view “gross and horrid” is beside the point.
-
I don’t think there is anything “beautiful” about existing in a disembodied state after death and being fully aware of the fact that you are “dead,” “unclothed” and “naked.” There’s nothing “beautiful” about being forced to consciously exist indefinitely in a state of existence for which one was not created. We were created to live in an embodied state; to consciously exist in a disembodied state would, in one sense, be less than human.
-
What about those who consider reincarnation a “beautiful” belief? Christ never explicitly denies it, either. And what about those who believe that men will become gods themselves one day and have wives with whom they will produce billions of spirit-children who will one day become gods themselves and that this process will continue for all eternity? The Mormons no doubt consider this a “beautiful” belief, and Christ never explicitly denies it, either.
-
I think it’s beautiful that at the resurrection God is going to bestow a glorious, immortal existence upon those who are existentially dead so that they will be “equal to angels” and will not be able to “die anymore.” I think every good and comforting idea you have concerning our post-mortem existence is stolen from the truth of the resurrection. Perhaps without fully realizing it, I think you’ve taken that which is beautiful about the resurrection (e.g., being alive and immortal, being “equal to angels,” being “always with the Lord,” etc.) and tried to apply it to something that is necessarily inferior to it.
(Again, to be continued when I have more time)
Enough.
As I’ve said; You’re more than welcome to your cessation of existence.
I however will not, and God forbid it occur on my part. God forbid it thoroughly, this violation of my Life in Him.