If it’s such a “perfectly useless disagreement” to you, I’m not sure why you would even bother expressing your own disagreement with what we’re saying. It’s like saying, “What you two are disagreeing over is irrelevant; here’s my opinion on the matter.” Is your disagreement with us less “perfectly useless” than our disagreement is with one another?
All truth is God’s truth, so all truth is important in some way. I mean, regardless of which of us is correct (or at least closer to the truth), isn’t it more advantageous to believe what is true (or closer to what is true) rather than to believe what is false (or further from the truth)? Especially when what is being discussed and disagreed on is what we think God has chosen to reveal (or not reveal) in Scripture. If Scripture has something to say about it, then I think it’s important enough to discuss and debate. Even if the truth at which we’re seeking to arrive forms only the “skin” of that great body of truth revealed in Scripture, it is, to me, important enough to invest time in discussions like this one. And this thread was, after all, created by someone who thought this an important enough topic to discuss, and it’s still active because people still consider it to be an important enough topic to discuss (and disagree on).
As far as influencing how we live, a belief in the resurrection is, I believe, highly influential to how we live; it’s the hope to which we are “born again” and in which we are saved, and it is the hope that purifies us. If, as I’ve argued, the hope of the resurrection is undermined or overshadowed by the belief that man remains existentially alive in a “disembodied state” after he physically dies, then that, to me, is a big deal.
I have read and have in my possession Lewis’ Problem of Pain, and actually skimmed through the first two chapters right after reading your post to refresh my memory. Interesting stuff, and I believe Lewis makes some good points. But he also seems to presuppose some of the very things that I’ve been trying to show are erroneous, such as that the word “soul” refers to some part of us that can be divorced from our body after death to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. And while that’s fine for those who already see things his way, it won’t do for those who don’t. And whether or not it’s right to presuppose such things gets close to the heart of the discussion on this thread.
Regarding the “Numinous,” I disagree that “apprehension of disembodied spirit is the very foundation of our religious instinct.” The word “numinous” simply describes the power or presence of a transcendent/supernatural entity (i.e., a deity), which tends to invoke dread and/or awe from those who experience it. The uncanny entity or power need not be understood as a “disembodied spirit.” And the mere fact that men have, since ancient times, believed that ghosts and evil spirits haunt this world and have experienced a corresponding dread and awe at the thought of being in the presence of such entities does not in the least prove that such beings have any actual existence. Even if God created us with a “religious instinct,” man is just as inclined to mistake that which has no actual existence for the actual object and source of his “religious instinct” and “numinous feelings” as he is to be religious. It may be natural for man to believe in some sort of transcendent/supernatural entity, but it is also natural for man to have a distorted view of the “supernatural world” he instinctively believes in, or which he instinctively dreads and stands in awe of. Rather than view the object and source of his numinous feelings as a benevolent being or beings (such as the God revealed in Scripture, or his angels), man tends to view the supernatural world as amoral at best, and hostile and malevolent at worst, since nature often seems this way. He has filled it with evil spirits and demons and ghosts (etc.), not because such entities have any actual existence, but because man, left to himself, becomes “futile in his thinking.” Just as man is naturally inclined to want to worship the creature rather than the Creator, so he is naturally inclined to fear or dread - and then to seek to control - the malevolent or amoral forces that he believes influence his life. Perhaps man has from ancient times believed in a disembodied existence for himself after death because of a fear of death and a desire for his conscious existence to continue. Or perhaps it was to fill the void that necessarily exists when he has little or no divine revelation to guide him; because the object and source of his “numinous feelings” has not revealed itself to him in a clear light (think of Abraham’s state before Yahweh called him), he instinctively fills the void himself with ideas that originate in his own mind.
How did you come to apprehend reality so well as to be so confident that “soulsleep” is a “canard?” Did science inform you of this? Or Scripture? Or both? And do you believe our mind/consciousness is just as dependent on our brain as it is on “space and time?” If not, how did you come to find this out?
You say “time is literally an illusion.” I’ve been taught that time is relative, but there seems to be a big difference between saying time is relative and that it’s an “illusion.” There certainly seems to be sequence in our experience and thoughts, and I’m not inclined to believe it’s merely an illusion.
Only in Einsteinian Physics, the theory of relativity is time relative; however, in Quantum physics time does not exist. Even Einstein said time was an ‘illusion’.
In March 1955, when his [Einstein’s] lifelong friend Michele Besso died, he wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
There is far more interesting articles than this, but it should start you on your road to discovery. Things are not what you think they are.
Thanks; I’ll try to check out the article when I have more time.
Until then, is it your view that there is actually no sequence to our existence and thoughts, and no change or motion? Or do you believe there is sequence and change and motion, but that the concept of “time” has nothing to do with these things? If so, perhaps we’re just talking about two different things when we speak of “time.” When I think of “time,” I can’t help but think of sequence and change and motion; they seem inseparable from the very concept of “time.” So for me, to say “time is just an illusion” or “time doesn’t exist” is to say that there is no sequence to our existence, and no change or motion. But that sequence and change and motion are part of our existence, is, to me, self-evidently true. To say otherwise would, to me, be like saying we don’t really exist at all.
So what do you mean when you say that time is only an illusion, or that time doesn’t exist? I’m just not sure how one could believe this and convey what they’re thinking in a way that is at all consistent with their belief. If someone were to ask you, “When do you think we are going to be raised with a spiritual, immortal body, and when do you think we’ll be conscious of our having been raised with a spiritual, immortal body,” wouldn’t you reply, “When we die”? And wouldn’t this mean that the resurrection is something that happens sometime after something else has happened?
Moreover, in a previous post on this thread you said:
If you believe time doesn’t exist and that it’s only an illusion, it seems somewhat inconsistent to use the past tense or to speak of something as being in the past, present or future (as you do above). If it’s true that time doesn’t exist and is only an illusion, then evidently it’s an illusion we cannot escape, especially when we’re trying to convey something meaningful and coherent to someone else.
But that you don’t really think time doesn’t exist or is just an “illusion” seems evident from the following:
If time is a “created entity composed and existing in nature and physics,” wouldn’t it be just as real and existent as nature and physics are? If time is only an illusion, then wouldn’t nature and physics be only an illusion as well? And if so, what does this mean to you?
Moreover, if the above is true (or even if time isn’t real and is only an “illusion”), I think it’s ultimately irrelevant to my view. For I believe the human individual - the person - is constituted by a physical body, not by that which isn’t “bound by nature or physics.” Even if it were true that the “spirit” which is represented as leaving us at death isn’t “bound by nature or physics,” this “spirit” is not us. It’s something a person has and which (in a sense) belongs to them while they’re alive, and is something which departs from them and returns to God at death. And according to Scripture, a dead person is always said to be wherever their dead body is or was, and not where their “spirit” went after they died. But why is this? Answer: Because the person was thought to be constituted by their physical body. Thus, when a person’s body died and returned to the dust, the person was thought to die and return to the dust. If a person’s body was in a tomb, the person was thought to be in a tomb. And when our “body” is “redeemed” and “transformed” (or “fashioned anew”) at the resurrection of the dead (Rom 8:23; Phil 3:21), it is the person who is said to be “raised,” which (again) implies that we are constituted by our body.
Ok, I got a chance to read the article. Very interesting stuff! The following are just a few excerpts on which I’d like to comment:
And according to physicist Carlo Rovelli:
and
If Simon Saunders - a philosopher of physics - feels that “by far the best thing to do is declare oneself agnostic” in regards to the “meaning of time,” then wouldn’t agnosticism be a wiser position for a layman (such as myself) to take than to conclude that time doesn’t exist? And while physicist Carlo Rovelli doesn’t consider time to be a “fundamental property of reality,” he still considers it a “macroscopic effect” which “emerges at large scales.” And that’s enough for me, because the scale at which time “emerges” and is an “effect” (according to Rovelli) is the scale at which human persons exist as living, conscious beings. So even if time does not exist at the atomic or subatomic level (and is, in that sense, an “illusion”), it’s still just as real to us as the “surface of the water” is. So even if the concept of “time” (in the sense of sequence, duration and “past, present and future”) is only meaningful on a “macroscopic level,” that’s the level at which we live and experience reality.
Moreover, Paul certainly seemed to think the resurrection was a future event that would take place “in time”:
“For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 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” (1 Thess 4:15-17).
Here we have a sequence of events that involves change and motion. And what’s more, the future event described by Paul in this passage and elsewhere (e.g., in Acts 24:15, 1 Cor 15:50-54 and Phil 3:20-21) is evidently something that is to take place while people are still alive and “left” on the earth. That is, mortals will still be inhabiting this planet when Christ returns to destroy the last enemy, death. Rather than dying, these people will simply be “changed” at the same moment as the dead are raised (i.e., when the “last trumpet” sounds). And there is both a “before” and an “after” to this “change.” Before this change, the living will be mortal; after this change, they will be immortal.
I have been studying Physics as a past time and it was one of my favorite topics in school. I ended up really enjoying Quantum physics and the understanding of what is beyond our physical universe both in the mega-macro and micro universe. Relativity, Einsteiniam Physics, applies to the macro but not the mega-macro or micro universe and understanding the Spirit is neither mega-macro, macro or micro universe, it is quite easy to understand the spirit is not affected nor limited or even constricted by time (which belong only to the macro universe).
Concerning the resurrection.
This is what happened 2000 years ago.
Matthew 27:52-53 “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”
John quotes Jesus in Revelation 1:8 saying, "“I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Not much is talked about the fact the resurrection is not a single event in the future, but an event consistently happening both in past, present and the future. the one who is presently come, who was come, and who is to come.
Paul says in 1 Thess 4:15-16 “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.” Well, we already know that in Matthew 27:52-53, that the dead in Christ already rose and appeared to many in the city after His Resurrection. He being the First Fruits, then them who were dead and now we who are alive (after the Resurrection) will also be caught up with the Lord to meet Him when we physically die. The dead in Christ have already risen.
Paul rebukes those who said that the resurrection of the dead has already come to past (meaning there is no future resurrection for those presently living) in 2 Timothy 2:17, “who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.” This is not to say Paul didn’t understand that the Resurrection of the Dead started to take place in the past, only that that it doesn’t stop there and our hope presently is in the resurrection of the dead. (The reason is because our Salvation depends upon it).
Paul admits this also in Ephesians 2:5-7 “When we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Meaning that at His Resurrection and afterward, we (speaking of the entire body of believers) have been and continue to be raised up with Him and seated with him in heavenly places; we have been caught up together both past present and future in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
The church has known this, you can go to many Christian funerals the pastor and the church says this and has not paid attention to what it means nor understand it. When your loved one dies, they are ALREADY in Heaven! The only way that can be… is to be resurrected; and what resurrected body they are in? A spiritual body.
Therefore, there is no soul sleep, never has been. When the soul dies, it has been resurrected into heavenly places. That is why we have a great witness in the clouds, that is why repeated throughout the Scriptures we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, why heaven rejoices, and why All are alive to Him.
The only caveat to soul sleep doctrine is if one believes there are some (those who aren’t considered in Christ when they died) who have to wait until His reign is over to be raised (Revelation 20:5-6).
When used in reference to man, it’s my view that the Hebrew and Greek words translated “spirit” can mean different things. If by “spirit” one means that which is said to depart from man at death, I believe this is simply his breath (i.e., the “breath” which gave Adam life after he was formed by God). This is the “spirit” that is common to all “living souls,” whether human or animal (Gen 6:17; 7:22; Eccl 3:19), and which Job said was in his nostrils (Job 27:3). Without this “spirit” or “breath” a person’s body is said to be “dead” (James 2:26). At death this “spirit” is said to “return to God who gave it” since, according to the Genesis narrative, it was breathed into Adam’s nostrils by God after Adam was formed from the dust (and I believe it can be said to enter each person when they take their first breath and begin breathing on their own). Nothing more returns to God when a person dies than that which God is said to have breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make him a “living soul.” Since this “spirit” or “breath of life” wasn’t a conscious, thinking entity before it was breathed into Adam’s nostrils, I don’t think it is a conscious, thinking entity when it departs from man at the time of death. Nor do I think it is some kind of ethereal substance that leaves us at death to either await a future resurrection or be immediately clothed with a new body.
The words translated “spirit” can also refer to the mental/emotional aspect of a human person (e.g., one’s mental disposition and feelings), but when used in this sense I don’t think these words refer to that which was breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make him a “living soul,” and which was breathed out of Adam when he died. When Paul, for example, speaks of God’s spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Rom 8:16), I don’t think he’s talking about something that is in our nostrils, and which we breathe out when we die. This isn’t the “spirit” that is said to “return to God who gave it,” and without which the body is said to be dead. The “spirit” with which God’s spirit bears witness is our mind (1 Cor 2:11, 16), or perhaps more specifically, our mental disposition (Eph 4:23). And our ability as human beings to think and feel and reason and reflect and understand depends on our having a functioning brain (which itself depends on our having the “breath of life” in us). But if we were created by God in such a way that we can do these things just as well without a brain as we can with one, why then did God create us with a brain at all?
While I believe it would’ve been natural for the Gospel writer to speak of the resurrection of these saints by saying that their bodies had been raised (since I believe the saints were constituted by their bodies), isn’t it your view that the bodies of those who have fallen asleep return to the dust? Or do you think the Gospel writer had in mind the immortal, glorified bodies of the saints? But if that’s the case, then (according to your view) wouldn’t these bodies have been raised when the saints died? Or do you believe this has only been true after Christ’s resurrection, and was not true before? If so, what do you think was the state of those who died before Christ’s resurrection? What do you think was the state of the saints referred to in Matt 27:52-53 before their bodies were raised after Christ’s resurrection?
How does Jesus’ being the one “who is, who was and who is to come” entail that the resurrection of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere is a past, present and future event? I don’t see how this verse entails such a view any more than it entails that Jesus’ own resurrection is a past, present and future event (which is, of course, absurd).
Moreover, Paul reveals in 1 Cor 15:51-53 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 that, rather than “sleeping,” some people will still be alive when the dead are raised at the “last trumpet,” and that these people will undergo a miraculous “change” to make them immortal. So if the words in Rev 1:8 mean the resurrection of the dead is a past, present and future event, then I think it would also mean the change of the living into immortal beings is a past, present and future event as well.
Paul wrote as if the events described in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15 were future in his day, not as if they were already past or present and ongoing. The “coming of the Lord” and his descent from heaven “with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God” seems to have been understood by Paul to be a future event, at which time the “dead in Christ” would be “raised” and those who were “alive” and were “left” (or “remained”) would be “caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” That is, the coming of the Lord/his descend from heaven and the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s at his coming” was considered by Paul to be just as much a future reality at the time he wrote as the change of the living and their being caught up together with those raised to meet the Lord in the air. There is no indication that Paul understood the coming of Christ to raise the dead or the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s at his coming” to be a past or present/ongoing event. It really makes no sense at all to me to say that Christ’s descent from heaven is a past, present and future event, or that this particular coming of Christ takes place every time a believer dies. And based on Paul’s own words I’m confident that this was not his view. I also think Paul would’ve agreed with the words spoken by the angels to Jesus’ disciples as Jesus ascended into heaven (“This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” - Acts 1:11) as well as with Peter when he declared that Jesus would “remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:21). Do not both of these verses refer to the same coming of Christ of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15:23 and 1 Thess 4:13-18? If you don’t think they do, then to what “coming of Christ” do you think they refer?
Also, Paul says nothing about those who would be alive at this time as having to die before they could be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Why would Paul even speak of those who would be “alive” and “left” as not preceding “those who have fallen asleep” if the living were going to die/fall asleep as well, and thus be included among those who would need to be raised? Paul is clearly trying to draw a distinction between two different categories of people: those who would be dead at Christ’s descent from heaven, and those who would still be alive. One group of people (the dead) would be in need of a resurrection, while the other group of people (the living) would need to be “changed” from mortal to immortal in order for death to be destroyed and swallowed up in victory. And both the resurrection of the dead (which is a change from perishable to imperishable) and the change of the living (from mortal to immortal) is said by Paul to take place “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” But I think Paul would’ve written very differently if he’d believed that the “last trumpet” sounded at every person’s death.
Now, it seems to me that the only way Matthew 27:52-53 could possibly be the fulfillment of what Paul describes in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15 is if the “bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep” were raised sometime after Paul wrote 1 Thess and 1 Cor. But this seems unlikely for at least three reasons.
First, it seems implausible that the fulfillment of such a highly significant and anticipated prophetic event would only be mentioned once in the entire NT, by only one Gospel writer. It also seems implausible that the fulfillment of such a highly significant and anticipated prophetic event would be referred to in Matthew’s Gospel in such an incidental way. These two obscure verses in Matt 27 read almost like a footnote in the narrative. If the resurrection of the bodies of these saints was in fact the fulfillment of Paul’s words concerning the resurrection that was to take place at Christ’s coming, then such a brief allusion to the resurrection that was to take place at Christ’s coming (without even mentioning Christ’s coming itself) - and that by Matthew’s Gospel alone - is, I believe, inexplicable. But if (as I believe) the resurrection of the saints referred to in these two verses was a restoration to a mortal existence (like the resurrection of Lazarus) rather than a resurrection like Christ’s, the incidental nature of its mention by Matthew makes a good deal more sense.
Second, based on the few details provided by Matthew in these two verses, it seems reasonable to understand the resurrection of the bodies of these saints to have taken place shortly after Christ’s death rather than years later (i.e., sometime after Paul wrote). It can, I think, be reasonably inferred that the earthquake which opened the tombs of these saints took place when Christ died. But is it reasonable to believe that the tombs remained opened - and the dead bodies/remains of the saints who had fallen asleep remained exposed - for more than 20 years after Christ’s death? Is it not more reasonable to believe that the opening of the tombs was simply preparatory to a resurrection that took place shortly after Christ’s resurrection on Sunday, and that the saints were restored to a living existence (as Lazarus had been) and appeared to people in Jerusalem as a miraculous sign that served to further authenticate and confirm Jesus’ Messiahship? But if the resurrection of these saints took place shortly after Christ’s resurrection on Sunday morning then it could not have been the fulfillment of the resurrection which was still future in Paul’s day, and which was to take place at Christ’s coming on the “last day,” at the sounding of the “last trumpet.”
Third, Matthew tells us that “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.” We aren’t told that all of the saints who were dead were raised. But wouldn’t it be more reasonable to understand Paul’s expression “the dead in Christ” and “those who are Christ’s at his coming” to include, at the very least, all who had died in faith up to this time (including the OT men and women of faith described in the letter to the Hebrews)? For Matthew to say “many of the bodies…” would make sense if the bodies that were raised were those that belonged to believers who had recently died, and which (like Lazarus’ body) had not undergone a significant degree of decomposition. Understood in this way, the word “many” would be relative to those saints who had recently died before Christ’s death (it could also be understood as a contrast with the small number of people throughout redemptive history who are said to have been miraculously restored to a mortal existence). But even this would’ve been a relatively small group of people, and would be consistent with the fact that it is mentioned in only Matthew’s account (and briefly at that), and goes unnoticed in the rest of the NT.
For Paul, to say that the resurrection of the dead had already taken place would’ve been like saying that the “coming of Christ” referred to in 1 Cor 15:23 had already taken place, and that Christ had already descended from heaven “with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.” It would’ve been like saying that the “last trumpet” had already sounded and that death had already been “swallowed up in victory,” or like saying “this lowly body” had already been fashioned anew to be like Christ’s “glorious body.” For Paul, the raising of the dead to immortality by Christ was a future event (Acts 24:15) that would conclude Christ’s reign and consummate redemptive history (1 Cor 15:21-28; 50-55), not something that had already begun in the past and was then taking place in the present. To say otherwise is, I believe, to either intentionally or unintentionally perpetuate the same error with which Hymenaeus and Philetus were guilty of leading people astray in Paul’s day.
I don’t think Paul’s speaking of the same resurrection in Ephesians 2:5-7 as he is in 1 Thess 4:13-18. In Ephesians 2 the resurrection of which he speaks is clearly a past event and present reality for believers, whereas in 1 Thess 4 the resurrection is confined to a time that was yet future when Paul wrote, and which was to take place when Christ descended from heaven “with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.” There is no indication that this descent of Christ from heaven and the sounding of the last trumpet had already taken place before Paul wrote to the Ephesians. Moreover, it is evident from Eph 2:1 that the resurrection of which Paul is speaking is a resurrection from being “dead in the trespasses and sins” in which Paul said his readers “once walked.” This “death” is most certainly not the death that Jesus died and from which he was raised. Nor is it the death that Paul had in view when he spoke of “the dead in Christ” being “raised first.” It is two entirely different “deaths” - and thus two entirely different “resurrections” - that Paul has in view in these two passages. One refers to the radical change in our spiritual condition and status when we believe the gospel of Christ and pass “from death to life” (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14-15), while the other refers to the future restoration of a living, embodied, conscious existence to those who have physically died. One can have “passed from death to life” in the sense of which Christ speaks in John 5:24 and still be in need of being raised in the sense that Paul speaks in 1 Thess 4:13-18.
I agree that if our loved ones were already in heaven it would mean they had already been raised with their immortal, spiritual body, but I don’t see any evidence that Paul or any other inspired author believed that the resurrection to immortality had taken place for anyone except Christ. Insofar as Christians believe that those who die are already in heaven, I believe they have strayed from the truth of Scripture. And I think that, for the most part, those Christians who declare that those who have died are already in heaven know full well what they’re saying and what they believe. They believe we have “immortal souls” and that those in heaven exist in a conscious, disembodied state, and that they will remain in this disembodied state until they are clothed with an immortal body at the time of the resurrection. I don’t think most Christians have any problem at all believing that people go to heaven as disembodied spirits after they die before they are later raised with glorified, immortal bodies.
I’m a little puzzled by your position. What do you think was the state of those who died before Christ’s resurrection? Do you believe people simply existed in a conscious, disembodied state before Christ’s resurrection and then were raised with a glorified, immortal body after Christ’s resurrection? Or do you believe people were being raised with a glorified, immortal body at death even before Christ was raised? If the latter, then this would seem to conflict with Matt 27:52-53, which you believe refers to the “dead in Christ” of 1 Thess 4:16.
… their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17,18
From this verse, it would appear that Hymenaeus and Philetus, held a similar or identical belief to that of Student of the Word. Or am I out in left field here?
Not saying that this isn’t speaking about physical graves and the physically dead, but I believe that (even if it is) it bears witness to that which is taking place spiritually “at the appearing of Christ” (in us). For, as I see it, the “grave” from which “the dead” need to be redeemed (and that which is “opened” at “His resurrection” (again, “in us”) is “the body of thsi death”, of which Paul spoke.
AMEN! HE is THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE!
As stated above, I believe that “the dead in Christ” are not those buried in physical graves, but those who have “fallen asleep in Jesus” (not yet knowing Gor or Jesus Christ whom He sent, nor the power of His resurrection). I believe that both those who “are alive” and those who “sleep” remain (both being physically alive)… and it is “the dead” (whom Jesus called “the tares”) who “rise first” for “all were dead” and those who “are alive” have already passed from death unto life… they are already “chidlren of the resurrection”.
So I can’t say, necessarily, that “the dead in Christ have already risen” for “the dead” are not “risen” until they come to know “the power of His resurrection” (every man in his own order).
That being said, I think it is important to note that we were “quickened together” with Christ “even when we were dead in sins” and it because we were “baptized into His death” that we shall also “walk in the newness of life” (having also been raised with him). So it seems a bit more complicated then just seeing things as a series of events, esepcially if we connect those event to our faith, rather than to God’s grace.
WAS, IS and IS TO COME! Amen!
Jesus said: “That the dead ARE RAISED…”
The dead “are raised” at His appearing!
Christ in you, the hope of glory!
Amen!
Amen!
I do not believe that the resurrection of the dead is tied to physical death at all, for those who believe. For those who believe “have passed” from death unto life and they “are” the great cloud of witnesses and a light unto the world.
Ever consider the thousand years in relation to it being “twice told”? Being “one day” that is divided into “two days” (yesterday and today), wherein it is “the night” (which is "as yesterday, when it is past) that needs to be “finished” before “the rest of the dead” can live? Which is true of all of us, as we must all “enter into” THE DAY of the Lord? And we do so when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts (= “today”, which is why Jesus told the thief on the cross: “TODAY, shalt thou be with me in paradise”)?
Do we study scripture to become better lawyers, arguing the niceties and nuances of interpretation?
“Beware the leaven of the Pharisees”
I recommend we all reread Titus 3. I just did. Studying scripture opens our heart to humility, and conviction; it teaches and instructs us how to live and to treat one another. Using Scripture as fodder for a Declamation Contest is like using the pages of the bible as rolling paper. We need to redeem the time, fellow laborers, and spend less time arguing at the doctrinal “water cooler” - the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.
I can certainly agree, when it comes to ‘arguing’, which is why I would prefer to simply agree to disagree than continue to go round and round with someone over the same things time and time again while getting nowhere. But that certainly doesn’t mean that all discussions that take place at the doctrinal water cooler are useless does it?
Sometimes we come away learning and growing the most after we’ve come together with those who we might disagree with the most. At least that has been my experience. It’s when we disagree, not when we agree, that we are forced to take a much harder look at the claims we make and the beliefs we hold, no? It’s when we are forced to defend our beliefs that we are, sometimes, faces with looking at “facts” that might not have presented themselves before - with other, especially with those who see things the same way we do, right?
Isn’t that one of the reasons we even participate in doctrinal discussions in the first place? To reason together? To let iron sharpen iron?
Is that not part of laboring in the field? Bringing in the harvest? If not, then what is and why are you here?
I think many arguments and discussions here are hugely valuable. It’s delightful to learn and be sharpened by others who have enormous faith and knowledge of the word. But this thread has puzzled me for the very simple reason that I can’t for the life of me tease out how it has the minutest impact on how I should spend tomorrow, or my money, or my time. I can’t see how it helps to inform our actions or reveal God’s character. Maybe I’m wrong, and this is a pressing question - please tell me how so? As I’ve gotten older I’ve just gotten incredibly aware of how short the time is, and we should always, from a doctrinal perspective, ask “is the game worth the candle?”. I think we’re called to hold one another accountable, as Paul suggests in Titus 3, to be wary of disputes whose outcome doesn’t meet this minimal standard.
I’m not trying to be dismissive of people’s time. Quite the contrary, we should be steel sharpening steel, and one if the sharpest questions we can ask is: is this a good and meaningful expense of our time and effort as Gods servants. It’s not always a comfortable thing to ask, but it is a threshold question.
Craig can clarify, but I believe that when he said the dead in Christ has already risen, he was speaking about those who came out of their graves after Jesus’ resurrection. Certainly that is not “all” of the dead, so doesn’t make the resurrection of the dead “past”… except for those who have already attained unto it, right?
So, if the dead are resurrected “every man in his own order”, as long as there are any who remain dead, the resurrection is not “past”, right?
Though you may not see it as the same “resurrection”, John speaks of someo who “have passed from death unto life”, while others “abide in death”.
1Jo 3:14 **We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. **
I think “that” is at the center of this whole argument over “soul sleep”… it begs the question(s)… who are “the dead” and “How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?”, right?
There are lots of online discussions that do not interest me in the least, though the they may cover what others see as important topics. The fact that I do not find them important doesn’t mean that they are not or should not be considered such by someone else, does it?
I find the topic of soul sleep quite intriguing, myself. Mostly because I think it is very important to understand that Jesus “is” THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. I also don’t think we can understand “what” the resurrection of the dead is if we do not understand who “the dead” are.
That doesn’t mean that I want to spend night and day talking about it or spend hours upon hours making and replying to “book length” posts (as you can some of them in this thread have gotten). That’s why I left the thread for awhile, and really only came back because I was asked to… though I am trying to not get reinvolved in such lengthy posts this time, if I can help it.
I think it helps answer the question: “How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” with something other than “thou fool”.
How can we even have hope for eternal life if we do not have hope in the resurrection of the dead?
Granted, one can hope in the resurrection even if they do not understand how the dead are raised up and with what body they come, but I don’t think it’s exactly pointless to discuss it or to want to understand it. Do you?
I agree, but it’s not up to me to decide what should or shouldn’t be important to someone else. It may be the case the importance of a particualr topic (to someone else) is hidden to me because there is something that I do not know… either about the topic itself or even the person to whom the topic is important. I know that this particular topic might be important to someone who has lost a loved one and what to know “where” they are or “what happened” to them when they died. May be important for other reasons, as well.
I don’t disagree, entirely. I think if we are spending hours and hours dicsussing a topic with the same person/people and not really getting anywhere, then it might be time to rethink the benefit of the conversation… though there may be other factors involved as well… like new participants or those who may be reading but not partipating directly, etc. It may be for those resason alone that I might answer a post to someone who I know what’s accept my answer but think an answer is warranted anyway, for others who might be reading.
But yeah, I think we also need to know when to say “enough is enough” and walk away.
The resurrection has only occurred in the past for those already risen, but for those who are still alive we look forward to the resurrection of the dead since we have not yet died. So it is as Jesus said to John, “I am who was, who is at present, and who is coming.”
There is quite a difference to those who say that resurrection is past (period), and that the resurrection is ongoing past, present and future. Paul rebuked those who said the resurrection was only a past event, meaning there is no hope for those who still live nor their children. Paul very well knew that our hope is only in the resurrection of the dead, therefore to say that it a past event, or does not exist, destroyed the entire faith principle of Paul’s theology.
This is the problem (as I see it), that we connect “the resurrection of the dead” to that which is natural/seen. Therefore, we understand the resurrection of the dead as it pertains to a carnal truth, rather than a spiritual one. And even though most can see “the resurrection of the dead” after a spiritual application, they call the spiritual “metaphorical” or “symbolic” and still look to the natural application as “the truth”. That, to me, makes looking at those things which are not seen while we are comparing spiritual things with spiritual kind of pointless. Who cares if one can be considered resurrected from the dead “metaphorically”, if that’s not what the resurrection of the dead is? This to me makes the spiritual (that which is NOT SEEN) the “type” and that is impossible - for it is those things that ARE SEEN that given “as examples” of those things that are unseen/eternal. Right?
Amen! And we PASS from death unto life “at His appearing”. Right?
Again, this was “typified” in that which was seen when the Word was “made flesh” at “the end of the world/age”. This, to me, typifies the end of “the age” of A CHILD (who is "under the law, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, our schoolmaster to lead us TO CHRIST, who is “the end of the law”) and the adoption/placement OF SONS (redeemed from under the law, by the grace of God, through faith)… BY “the resurrection of the dead”.
AMEN!! But it is not just “past” and “future”, but IS,WAS and IS TO COME. We seems to ignore the “is”, even though when Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead in 1 Cor 15 it is written in the perfect and present tenses.
1 Cor 15:13 But if there be (present tense) no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen (perfect tense): And if Christ be not risen (perfect tense), then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
It is not just about the fact that Jesus rose (past tense) from the dead… but that CHRIST “is risen”.
It is THE POWER ~of~ HIS RESURRECTION that Paul said he was striving to know.
That is how we “have part in the first resurrection”.
Paul said: “But now is CHRIST risen (perfect tense) from the dead, and become (second aorist tense, middle deponent/active voice) the FIRSTFRUITS of them that slept (perfect tense).”
He is talking about CHRIST, not Jesus.
Jesus said: “I AM” the resurrection and the life… those who believe HAVE PASSED from death unto life… and those who LIVE AND BELIEVE “shall never die”.
The flesh is not counted. God makes this clear from the very beginning. Cain (the first born, which typifies the first/natural/carnal man) IS NOT COUNTED in the generations of Adam “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” It is never the first born that receives the blessing when it comes to the blessings of God, for it is “the second man” who is “the Lord from heaven” (THE IMAGE OF GOD).
This is why God gave Seth as “another seed instead of Abel” (whom Cain, the first born / natural man slew), just as “the church” (the body of Christ) is given “in Christ’s stead” to preach the gospel of our salvation. No?
We need to look to the Kingdom of God that is WITHIN, if we are to see “the coming of the Lord into His kingdom”. No?
And shall we not “rule and reign with Christ” as kings and priests in the Kingdom of God once we “enter in”? And do we not enter in “by faith”?
This, as I see it, is “the resurrection of the dead” and “eternal life”.
Wow, i have read most of these posts, some are a bit long and a lot of them are very interesting and eye opening. I can also see everyone’s point of view. Thing is, i am more confused then ever now. I truly don’t know what to believe now.
Do you think that maybe God didn’t make it clear on purpose? Maybe its just a mystery about what happens after we die, that’s why scripture is vague and sometimes “appear” to contradict and plus the translations vary along with interpretations and that’s why we all come up with different doctrines and theories. Plus we all seem to have different beliefs, like some of us are preterists, some are futurists, some believe in the rapture, some do not, and those that do, some are pre-trib, some are mid or post trib…and so on and so on. and so on…
I think all of our differences affect what we believe the scriptures are saying about what happens to us after death…and that is why we go in circles and never come to an agreement.
Wish i knew what happens, but frankly, i am clueless
It’s like saying, “What you two are disagreeing over is irrelevant; here’s my opinion on the matter.” Is your disagreement with us less “perfectly useless” than our disagreement is with one another?
I truly don’t know what to believe now.