Lefein, Aaron made perfectly clear that no one suggests that a human being is “only a body.” To attack that position is to attack a straw man. We believe that consciousness is an aspect of the body, but more than the body, just as a bicycle is more than the sum of its parts. If one were “only a body” he would be in the same position as Adam was in before God breathed the breath of life into him and he received a soul. Woops! I made a mistake there. It doesn’t say he received a soul. It says he became a living soul. The whole living being called “Adam” was a soul. That included his body. God didn’t pick out from a bundle of “souls” a being which He labelled “Adam” and thrust it into the body He created. No. Rather Body + Spirit of Life = Soul.
Nor do I believe in “soul sleep”. I don’t believe in the existence of souls (in the Platonic sense) at all. You don’t have a soul that sleeps. You don’t have a disembodied soul that goes somewhere after death. If you don’t have a body, you are not a soul any longer. You don’t exist. When you die, you’re dead, and you’ll stay dead until God raises you to life. Jesus didn’t go to heaven at death. He was dead for 3 days. Then God raised Him from the dead and He ascended to heaven. We, too, will not get to heaven until after we are raised from the dead.
When I say “just a body” what I am saying is that my existential person is not body-dependent.
If my existence requires a body, then my existence is effectively (or at least practically) my embodiment, which isn’t much of a stretch from saying “I am my body” for all practical purposes. If the spirit is just animating force, batteries, and the soul only comes about by an animation of a body; then the soul is effectively that body as it would be hardwired to it, dependent on it, and without which non-existent. It is not a mere strawman that I am attacking, but a concept being expressed here; that a person is body-dependent to exist.
I believe that I am a spirit (a living ‘immaterial’ being, angels are spirits for example) first and foremost, my existence is not body-dependent; it is God-dependent. I will not see Death, I will by no means die by reason of the age (never die as the KJV puts it). That I physically die is gain, as I go from the land of the living to Life Himself. Nothing, neither life nor death, (nor time) shall separate me from God.
That Adam became a living soul when the breath of life entered the dust is not much different from a baby becoming a baby when the sperm and egg meet in the womb. The baby does not depend on the womb to exist, only to live and function in its development until it is time to be born.
But as for cessation of existence at death; which is what I am calling soulsleep here. I want to offer this mind experiment.
If there was a perfectly made clone of you, with memory intact and functioning; would that person (clone) be you? Or would you be that person (clone)?
And another thought; would you equate cessation of existence with perishing? According to the dictionary anyway, that is what is implied. I just want to make sure our terms are in sync here.
What would a “dead soul” be? And how can a living person touch a dead soul?
Numbers 19:11 ‘He who touches the dead soul of anyone shall be unclean seven days.
Oh, I know. The King James and other translations render the Hebrew word “nephesh” as “body” in this context. But in Genesis, the same Hebrew word is rendered “soul” as in “… and man became a living soul.” What the Hebrew word REALLY means is “being”. Man became a living being. We read in Genesis about the “souls of beasts”, that is the “beings of beasts.”
Otherwise, if we have in mind the Platonic concept of “soul”, then beasts have souls as well. Indeed, Plato thought that if we don’t behave well in this world, we may become as animal in our next reincarnation.
I am open to a contextual reading of soul being ‘being’, but I do not believe that is the limitation (based on many other verses) of the reading of ‘soul’ or ‘nephesh’, or ‘psuche’ in the Greek.
I also do not believe in Reincarnation for other reasons.
On a side note, there has been some consideration on my part for the body and its purpose, as well as soul-spirit/body connectivity, things for me to think about anyway.
Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I guess I am not subscribed to this thread and it’s been while since I’ve been here.
When I speak of “moving the comma”, I am obviously speaking of the translation(s) that we are using today which do have added punctuation… and, in those translation, the comma has to be moved (from one place to the other, regardless of which place it’s been added) in order to “change” the meaning of the statement - whether in support of or in opposition to the doctrine of “soul sleep”. Correct?
Certainly it is true that without the punctuation the statement could be read “either way”. But, as I explained, I believe that we miss the spiritual message being relayed by Christ unless we place the comma “before” the phrase “today shalt thou be with me in paradise”. And I believe that because of how I understand the “thousand years” (which is ONE DAY to the Lord) in relation to THE NIGHT (= YESTERDAY, when it is past) and THE DAY (= TODAY, when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts). I believe that understanding what “TODAY” means is extremely significant to understanding what Jesus is telling this thief who is being “crucified with him”… for is the same promise made TO US when we are “crucified with him”.
Most people see only a reign of LIFE associated with the “thousand years” but God divided “one day” into “two days” when He separated THE LIGHT from THE DARKNESS and called the darkness NIGHT and the light DAY, if we are to understand that night, when it is past, is “as yesterday”.
I already stipulated that it is not written “that way” and explained that the two phrased are joined together by the conjunction “and”. So why accuse me of taking the passage “out of context” just because I disagree with your interpretation (one I have already said I once agreed with)? But it is one that I think you have to “back into” this verse with in order to make this verse fit the doctrine.
If I said: “I am going to paint my bedroom blue AND green” would you somehow come to the conclusion that I was going to paint it only blue and then, sometime later (much later, perhaps), paint it green? If I said: “I am going to pick up Jane AND go to the mall” would you think that I am talking about two different trips? One in which I am going to pick up Jane and another one in which I am going to go to the mall (which may or may not even include Jane)? If not, then why should I believe that when Paul says: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” he means to imply something other than the first condition (being “absent from the body”) RESULTING IN the second condition (being “present with the Lord”)?
I don’t believe that ANYONE who doesn’t already believe in the doctrine of soul sleep would ever read this passage “that way”. I certainly never read it that way until I had to start arguing “in favor of” the doctrine of soul sleep… which, unless read ‘that way’, this passage does NOT support.
I don’t believe that anyone would believe that someone saying: “I would rather be absent from the body AND present with the Lord” is not expecting TO BE “present with the Lord” as soon as they ARE “absent from the body”. And I certainly would not expect someone to PREFER to be absent from the body or be TORN between remaining or going if they didn’t actually believe that BEING “absent from the body” meant BEING “present with the Lord”.
Why would Paul have been torn between staying with those who needed him and going to sleep in the dust (for however long it took him to be resurrected from the dead), when he knew that it was more needful for them that he remain (that being the very reason he was torn) and he knew that as soon as he did depart wolves would come in among them not sparing the flock?
This is pretty much how I see it as well. I don’t think anything “changed” post-Jesus. I believe that the Word being made flesh manifest into “sight” those things that are “not seen”. We have been “crucifying Christ” since the very foundation of the world, which is why He is called "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’. We have "crucified’ THE TRUTH in OUR MINDS (which is why Jesus was crucified “in a place called a skull”) and "buried it’ IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH, after a spiritual truth, for as long as mankind has existed. And when HE IS RAISED FROM THE DEAD (within us) we are RAISED WITH HIM, which is why OUR LIFE IS HID with Christ and God and it not until HE (who is our life) APPEARS that we APPEAR WITH HIM (Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory).
So many seem to be quoting Martha, saying… “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day”. And they almost pay no attention to (or don’t properly understand) Jesus’ reply when He said: “I AM the resurrection and the life”.
If “the spirit” that returns to God is nothing more that a “breath of life” that has no consciousness and is simply present to give men (and animals) natural life, then why is that God’s spirit bears witness to OUR SPIRIT that we are he children of God? Why does our SPIRIT need to be “quickened”? Why did Paul say that he turned a man over to satan 'for the destruction of the flesh, that HIS SPIRIT might be saved in the day of the Lord"?
We need to remember that Cain (the “type” of the first, natural man) WAS NOT COUNTED in the generations of Adam “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”. We need to see that God breathing 'the breath of life" into Adam’s nostrils to make him “a living soul” is a picture of God sending forth His spirit into US (who are “dead” IN SIN… the soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE) “a LIVING soul”. The flesh is not being counted when Jesus says that those who LIVE AND BELIEVE (having PASSED from death unto life, by having Christ (LIFE) formed IN THEM) shall never die.
The “resurrection of the dead”, as I see it, has nothing whatsoever to do with corpses. It is THIS MORTAL and THIS CORRUPTIBLE that must “put on” IMMORTALITY and INCORRUPTION by being CLOTHED with Christ. And Paul is clear that our desire is NOT “to be unclothed” but TO BE “clothed upon”. And it then that mortality is swallowed up of LIFE… has nothing to do with the flesh for it came from dust and it returns to dust… and we know that if this earthly tabernacle were DISSOLVED that WE HAVE “a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”.
The “graves” that were opened and the “grave” from which we need to be redeemed is “the body of this death” that is “full of dead men’s bones” and whose THROAT is “an open sepulcher” and whose TONGUE is “a world of iniquity… set on fire of hell”. And that redemption come when we come to know the power of HIS (Christ’s) RESURRECTION (= THE FIRST RESURRECTION).
For we know that having been BURIED WITH HIM IN DEATH (= SECOND DEATH) we shall also walk in THE NEWNESS OF LIFE, by being RAISED WITH HIM (= FIRST RESURRECTION)… every man in His own order.
The “dead in Christ” are among those who “remain”… they are “dead” in sin. As it was “even when we were dead in sin” that we were “quickened together with Christ”, making Him Lord of BOTH “the living” AND “the dead”.
That is why Paul tells us not to mourn for those “who sleep”. He’s not comforting us about believers. Why should believers be mourning for other believers? He is speaking of unbelievers… the “tares” of which Jesus (also) said would be gathered “first”.
Whether when we die, we are actually dead until the resurrection, or whether we take off at death as a disembodied spirit into the presence of the Lord, our personal experience will be identical! For the next thing of which we will be conscious subsequent to death will be enjoying the presence of the Lord.
I was a bit apprehensive about my first surgery. I thought that when I was rendered unconscious it would be like entering a horrible, dark hole. When lying on the operating table, I glanced at the clock. It was 1 P.M. Then I heard what sounded like faint voices. I glanced at the clock again and it was 3 P.M. The surgery was over, and I have no memory of anything between 1 and 3. I am guessing that this is what it will be like between our death and our resurrection. To us, we will die at one instant and be with the Lord at the next ---- even if the actual time between the events is 3000 years! So as far as what we, personally, will experience, it doesn’t matter which view is correct.
I understand that when it comes to our perception that there would be no difference between the two. But I do think it is important to have a proper understanding of “the resurrection of the dead”. And I think we can only have a proper understanding of the resurrection of the dead if we have a proper understanding of who the dead are and how they are raised.
I do not believe that when we physically die that we are still waiting for “the resurrection of the dead”. I believe that Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life and just as we were baptized into HIS DEATH (= second death) so did we have part in HIS RESURRECTION (= the first resurrection).
Some will say… well yeah, but only figuratively, because they don’t believe we are truly resurrected from the dead until our physical bodies are resurrected and/or changed into the type of body that Jesus had after His resurrection… one that is “flesh and bones” but that can also pass through walls, materialize in locked rooms, and/or disappear at will. But that is not how I see the dead or the resurrection of the dead nor what I understand to be the reason why Jesus appeared as He did, in a body of flesh and bones, after His resurrection.
A “soul” (nephesh) is “a breathing creature” and what makes that “soul” LIVING or DEAD is “the breath of life” (ie the Spirit of God). God sends forth His spirit as we are “created”. He takes it away and we “return to dust” (to our natural, carnal state). As I see it, when God said; “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” he was not talking about physical death (man has always been MORTAL… it is THIS MORTAL that must PUT ON immortality, that ONLY CHRIST has). He was talking about the same thing James was talking about when he said:
Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
That is the “death” that is “the wages of sin”, the “death” Adam suffered in the garden, and the “death” that was passed on to all men - for all men have sinned. And it is THIS “death” from which we need to be “resurrected”. It is not a postmortem event tied (mostly) to physically dead bodies, but one that must take place “in this world” for it is THIS MORTAL who is “putting on” IMMORTALITY.
It is not about being “unclothed” but about being “clothed upon”. And Paul said that if this earthly tabernacle were DISSOLVED that would KNOW that WE HAVE that house not made with hands. It is not a body that we must wait for but one that is reserved for us in the heavens.
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
How do you harmonize your disbelief in a physical resurrection with the words of Paul in I Cor 15 in which he describes the resurrection as most physical indeed?
32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Paul certainly seems to be saying that if there is no resurrection we will eventually die and remain dead, so what good was all his sacrifice for the sake of witnessing for Christ? He might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for there is nothing beyond death for him.
35 ¶ But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
It sounds to me as if Paul is saying that the resurrection body is as different from our present body as a wheat plant is different from a grain of wheat. Though a wheat plant differs greatly from a grain of wheat, they are nevertheless both wheat. Although the resurrection body differs greatly from our present mortal body, nevertheless both are bodies.
51 ¶ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
Does this not tell us not all people will die a physical death? (figuratively called “sleep” Even Jesus said of a girl who had died, “She is sleeping”. But when others thought He was speaking of natural sleep, told them plainly, “She is dead”).
Not all shall die. Some will be alive at His coming, but at that time they shall all be changed instantly in the sense that their mortal bodies will put on immortality. The immortal bodies into which those who are alive at His coming, shall be changed, are identical to the immortal bodies which the raised saints will possess when they become alive again at Jesus’ second coming.
Yet, “the soul (= a BREATHING creature) that sinneth, it shall die”.
And in the day that Adam sinned, Adam (a LIVING soul) “died” (becoming a DEAD soul).
That has no bearing on Adam’s physical condition, it concerns his spiritual condition.
We “are dead” in sin and yet when God sends forth His spirit we, too, are “made a LIVING soul” and “translated into the kingdom of God” (the garden God planted eastward in Eden).
So while it may be “body + spirit = soul”, there is a NATURAL body and there is a SPIRITUAL body. And it is not “the spirit of man” that makes one " a LIVING soul", it is the spirit OF GOD that makes one “a LIVING soul”. And that which was sewn IS NATURAL while that which is raised IS SPIRITUAL.
It’s not a “disembodied” soul. It is a soul with A SPIRITUAL BODY. And it is “the body of Christ”.
Jesus being “crucified in a place called a SKULL” and being buried in a physical tomb for three days and three nights is “a figure” of something far greater - that cannot be seen with the natural eye.
Man has been “crucifying” THE TRUTH since the very foundation of the world. We became enemies IN OUR MINDS and OUR LIFE WAS HID (with Christ in God) by being BURIED “in the heart of the earth” (WITHIN US) until that SEED/WORD which was PLANTED (for it fell into the ground and DIED) is “raised from the dead”… AND WE WITH HIM!
I do not believe he is speaking of a physical resurrection at all. That is why he says to him that wold ask: “How are the dead raised up and with body do they come?” with “Thou fool”.
He tells us that the body that was sewn IS NOT the body that is raised.
And just as not all flesh is the same flesh neither are all celestial bodies the same.
Paul likens the difference to the difference between the sun, the moon and the stars, even from one star to another.
And who are “the stars” in the book of Revelation? Are they not men, even “the angels of the churches”? And doesn’t Jesus speak of us becoming “as the angels of God” when it comes to “the resurrection of the dead”?
yes, of course, they are both bodies. I’ve not ever said otherwise.
Do you see that as only “a future event”?
We do not ALL SLEEP. Some have already passed from death unto life, right?
But I believe that we have all been changed for those in Christ are “a new creature”. Right?
Note that it is THIS MORTAL that is “putting on” IMMORTALITY. According to Paul, we do this by being “clothed upon” - not by being “unclothed”.
That which IS SEEN bears witness to that which IS NOT SEEN. We are supposed to be looking upon those things which are nor seen (comparing spiritual things to spiritual). Right?
So what does PHYSICAL death tell us about the SPIRITUALLY dead?
Jesus comes the second time unto them that look for Him. That “coming” (appearance, revelation, presence) takes place “within” as He is coming into His kingdom (which is “within”).
When Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain not preventing those who sleep I believe he is talking about people who are physically alive, whether they be “alive” or “dead” (after a spiritual truth) and he is telling us not to mourn for those who sleep because 'the dead in Christ shall rise first".
They are not physically dead, though. They are among those who “remain” unto “the end”.
Jesus said that in the time of harvest (He said the field were white already to harvest, even then) he would send forth his angels to reap (who did he send to reap?) telling them “gather ye together FIRST THE TARES”. These are “the dead in Christ” of which Paul spoke. And the tares/dead are gathered/raised FIRST because “if one died for all, then were ALL DEAD”.
It is only “the dead” who are in need of “resurrection”. Right?
We (being dead, but also being baptized into HIS DEATH) were raised WITH HIM. But I believe that we each come to the knowledge of that truth and come to know THE POWER of HIS RESURRECTION “at His coming” (his being formed IN US)… “every man in his own order”.
Christ, the FIRSTFRUIT (because HE IS OUR LIFE), THEN those who are His AT HIS COMING (His appearing IN THEM that believe), THEN cometh THE END… when “the dead in Christ” shall be raised and those who are alive and remain shall be caught up in the air with them… and we shall ALL “ever be with the Lord” and God will be “all in all”.
i don’t see that as having anything to do with this earthly, natural body. They are not “the same” body. And I do not believe that we are “disembodied” when this natural body dies and begins to return to the dust from which it came. We have a spiritual body already reserved for us in the heavens.
Sorry for the (relatively) delayed response; I’ve been at the beach!
You wrote:
By “invisible nature” I assume you mean the “immortal soul.” Because even I believe that there is a part of us that is “unseen” - I simply hold that this part of us refers to the “mental” aspect of our nature. But this aspect of our nature is not, I believe, something that can “survive the body,” since I understand a functioning brain as being that which makes “mind” possible for a human being. When the brain dies, I think there is good reason to believe that all mental activity ceases.
But when a statue is destroyed it no longer exists - all that exists is the matter by which it was constituted. And if we are constituted by our body and our body dies and is “destroyed,” we no longer exist, either. We will, of course, continue to exist in a conceptual sense in the mind of God (just as we existed conceptually in God’s mind before he brought us into actual existence), but in order for us to exist again in an actual sense we must be re-constituted.
In an earlier post, I wrote:
Since you believe that we are immortal souls, is it your view that every individual who is said to have “died” in Scripture (and there are countless examples) did not, in fact, die? Because if every individual of which Scripture speaks is an immortal soul, how could they be said to “die?”
I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I’m not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we’re immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we’d be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.
I believe we exist in the same number of dimensions as the physical body by which we are constituted does, and I don’t think you’ve yet given any evidence (Scriptural or otherwise) to the contrary. And where is your evidence that angelic beings are not embodied? Just because they are immortal and able to do things we can’t do in our mortal state doesn’t mean they aren’t embodied. Since angelic beings exist, I believe their existence must either be localized or they must exist in every possible place. And if they don’t exist in every possible place, then I can’t conceive of them as being without some sort of body by which they are constituted and localized.
So beliefs that are most “common” and “general” among human beings are more likely to be true? If I’m not mistaken, a belief in either ECT or annihilation was the most “common” belief in Christ’s day among both Jews and Pagans. And in Christ’s day, a belief in multiple deities was more common in Christ’s day than a belief in a single deity, unless you believe there were more Jews living in Christ’s day than there were Pagans in the world.
That we continue to consciously exist in a disembodied state after we die is not something that my experience/observation leads me to believe. If I am to believe it, it would have to be revealed to me by God. And since I don’t see it as having been revealed by God, I can’t just take your word for it. The fact that it was a common belief among the Jews and Pagans in Christ’s day doesn’t lead me to believe that they were correct in their opinions. In fact, it would seem that the more the Jews learned from and emulated the Pagans around them, the further they strayed from God.
I’m not sure what you mean by going “to the full extreme.” The fact is that rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God’s personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. Correct? By virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware we would necessarily bear the image of God, while non-human “living souls” would not. But if being in the image of God has to do with having a “transcendent, immortal soul,” and all non-human animals have “transcendent living souls” and thus “go to heaven” when they die (as you seen to believe), then what, according to your view, elevates a human being over, say, a dog or a chimpanzee?
Also, the fact that man can be “evil” “immoral” or act “very irrational” presupposes rather than points away from the fact that he is made in the image of God, because to be “evil” or “immoral” is to violate one’s moral nature and act in a way that is contrary to how one was created to live. One of my miniature dachshunds recently killed a baby duck that got into our yard (poor thing!), but it certainly wasn’t “evil” or “immoral” for doing so. If my next-door neighbour were to do the same thing, however, I would definitely consider his actions “evil” “immoral” and “irrational.” Why? Because I know he has a moral, rational nature, and I can’t conceive of any reason why he might choose to brutally kill a baby duck that would not constitute a violation of his moral, rational nature.
I believe God only does what he thinks is best, and if God didn’t do what you think he did, then it wouldn’t be “better.”
Certainly, but if God has so created man I think he would’ve revealed it in Scripture. Since I don’t think he has, I don’t believe he’s done it.
One could argue that it would be “better” not to have been created mortal in any sense or to have to physically suffer and die at all. Who likes physical suffering and death and think it makes this present existence better than it otherwise would be? But since we are mortal, are able to physically suffer and do physically die (even though I’d prefer not to), then I’m inclined to believe that what seems “best” to us is not necessarily what seemed best to God when he created us and ordered our existence the way he did.
Moreover, Paul didn’t seem to have any desire for the intermediate state between death and resurrection (what he calls being “naked” and “unclothed”); rather, his burden and longing was to “put on our heavenly dwelling” and be “further clothed.” And if by “naked” and “unclothed” Paul meant “existentially alive in a disembodied state,” then it would seem that, for Paul, it would be “better” to go directly into the presence of God in an embodied state. And according to my view, this is exactly what we experience (and, I believe, what Paul was anticipating): we die in an embodied state and our next conscious experience is in an embodied state. I think God ordered our existence in the way that he did for a benevolent reason: since we weren’t created to exist without a body, God made sure that the intermediate state between death and resurrection would be one of unconsciousness so that our next conscious experience would be in a re-embodied state. It sure beats being conscious of our “nakedness.”
Well then it can’t be because our pets lack a transcendent immortal soul that they don’t bear God’s image. May I suggest that these non-human “living souls” don’t bear God’s image because they lack certain fundamental personal attributes such as rational self-awareness and a moral nature?
I believe that the individual who is in Christ stays in Christ as well. But I deny that being “in Christ” entails that one remains existentially alive after physically dying just like I deny that it entails that one remains physically alive in an embodied state after physically dying. And I believe Scripture supports the latter just as much as it supports the former (which is to say it doesn’t support it at all).
Well first, I’m of the opinion that the prophetic vision which God gave Micaiah was not necessarily a literal scene that actually transpired in heaven. The “lying spirit” of which Micaiah speaks is, I believe, a personification of the “spirit of error/falsehood” (1 John 4:6; cf. Ezekiel 13:3, 8). I don’t think an actual, personal being went and became a “lying spirit in the mouth of all [Ahab’s] prophets.”
Second, let’s assume that this “spirit” was an actual personal, conscious being. Does being called a “spirit” preclude having a body? No, because angels are called “spirits” (Heb 1:13-14) and yet it’s evident that they have visible and tangible bodies of some sort (Gen 19:1-3, 16; 32:22-31; Hosea 12:4; Rev 22:8). Even Christ in his resurrection body is referred to as a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). Being called a “spirit” does not mean one isn’t constituted by a physical body.
“But” (it may be objected) “what about Luke 24:37-39?”
Again, angelic beings are called “spirits,” but they could be both touched and seen, just as Christ could be after his resurrection. So if by “spirit” Jesus meant an angelic being, then his allowing his disciples to see and touch his hands and feet would not have done much good, because angels have hands and feet (again, Jacob wrestled with one, and John fell at the “feet” of one). Even for those who do not think angels have physical bodies must acknowledge that angels can look and feel like they have physical bodies. Had Jacob been present along with the disciples when Jesus appeared to them and understood Jesus to be talking about angels, he could’ve replied, “Well the angel I wrestled with had hands and feet and certainly felt like he had flesh and bones!”
So what is the meaning of this passage? My understanding is that the word “spirit” is not being used in the sense of a higher angelic being, but rather to what many today would refer to as a “ghost.” Understood in this sense, the disciples didn’t think they were seeing the kind of supernatural being of which the OT speaks, but rather a dead person. If this is the case, then Christ was not sanctioning the meaning that they were ascribing to the word “spirit” at this time (which is probably meant to be understood as synonymous with the word phantasma used in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:49); he’s simply telling them that a “spirit” (in the sense of a “ghost”) does not have hands and feet and cannot be touched. It would be like me telling someone who mistakenly believes in the existence of vampires (and thought I was one), “See, a vampire doesn’t have a reflection as you see that I have.” For a person who from childhood has believed that vampires or ghosts exist, it wouldn’t do much good to tell them that vampires or ghosts don’t exist if they were frightened out of their wits because they thought they were in the presence of one. For one who is as “startled and frightened” as the disciples were, evidence that one isn’t in the presence of what one mistakenly believes one is in the presence of would be more helpful - and of course, that’s exactly what Christ does. Perhaps at another time (when the disciples were in a calmer state of mind), Jesus explained to them that the kind of “spirit” that they thought he was (i.e., a “ghost”) exists only in man’s imagination.
For my understanding of “evil spirits,” you can check out the following thread: Fallen Angels?
In short, I believe the Jews understood “evil spirits” or “demons” to be the disembodied spirits of wicked men (i.e., malevolent ghosts), and that Christ and his apostles were simply using the language of the day to refer to the psychological maladies that demons/evil spirits were thought to be responsible for.
Is John telling his readers not to believe every disembodied being they encounter? If so, how often do you think his readers encountered and received messages from disembodied beings? It must have been pretty common for him to give such a warning. But I don’t think the word “spirit” refers to disembodied beings at all. Rather, I believe John is using the figure of speech metonymy. The word “spirit” can refer to a person’s mind, feelings or mental disposition, or the inward influence or principle that governs and motivates a person’s actions. John is likely using the word to refer to those people who were professing to be prophets. IOW, he’s telling his readers not to believe every prophet, but to test them. And why is this? “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The “spirits” in view here are living, embodied men who were either being guided by the “spirit of truth” or the “spirit of error.”
Again, the word “spirit” can refer to the mental/emotional aspect of our nature, but that doesn’t mean it’s a separate entity or “immaterial substance” that exists in a disembodied, conscious state after death.
What do you mean by “more?”
I’m not sure where our disagreement is here, Lefein. Jesus proved his power over death by restoring a man to physical, embodied life. It’s true that Lazarus wasn’t raised in an immortal body, but he was restored to physical life nonetheless. I’m sure it’s not your view that Jesus was demonstrating the full extent of his power over death by restoring a dead man to a mortal existence. And of course the sense in which Christ is “the resurrection” is much greater in meaning than his having the power to restore the dead to a mortal existence, for I believe he will raise all who die in Adam to an immortal, happy and holy existence. I cannot conceive of a “better resurrection” than this, so I’m perplexed why you would say the resurrection is “much more” than this.
Of course; Jesus is today bestowing spiritual “life” upon those who believe on him, and will be dong so for as long as he reigns. Jesus also has the power to restore those who have physically died to a mortal existence both today as well as tomorrow. Neither this kind of “resurrection” nor this kind of “life” is “just a thing for the future.” But Jesus also has the power to raise those who have physically died to an immortal, sinless existence, and I don’t believe he will exercise this power (which I believe is the full extent of his power over “death, the last enemy”) until the “last day.”
The Jews were monotheists long before Plato came around, so I hardly think this is an example of God “inspiring” heathen with divine truth. I’m more inclined to believe that apart from divine revelation man tends to believe in multiple gods, so Plato’s monotheism should more properly be attributed to God’s previously having revealed this to the Jewish people. It’s certainly possible that God had been preparing the heathen so that they might be more receptive to what God had already revealed to the Jews. And how do you know Plato’s beliefs regarding the immortality of the soul were more “inspired” than any other pagan belief that was not derived from the OT?
The Jews had embraced a lot of pagan ideas by the time Christ came into the world, but if the ideas weren’t derived from what God had revealed to them (and the ideas could only be derived from a divine source rather than experience/observation), then I don’t see any reason to believe they were true. And I didn’t say an idea is negated of its value as being “true” just because it’s “Greek.” But if it’s contrary to what God has chosen to reveal to man, I don’t think it’s of any value whatsoever.
As far as I know Christ didn’t stand up and say any pagan beliefs were wrong. But that doesn’t mean he thought they were right, especially if the Law and the Prophets had nothing to say about it. And I’m very much aware that Gentiles throughout history have believed the dead to exist in a conscious disembodied state, but it was Plato who I believe made an already ancient pagan idea more intellectually acceptable and appealing.
Nor do I believe the “Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas (etc.).” But to whatever extent that they believed what God chose to reveal to them and reverently/humbly refrained from embracing that which God had not revealed (but which only God could give any certain knowledge of), I believe their beliefs were far superior to those of the pagans or even the “early church Fathers” (who I see no reason to believe were more “Spirit-filled” than those Christians who denied that man has an “immortal soul”).
Is Christ’s silence on the matter of reincarnation or transmigration also “telling” to you that this common belief wasn’t and isn’t a gross error? Christ also said nothing directly against the view that some will be annihilated or eternally miserable; is this also “telling” to you that this common belief wasn’t and isn’t a gross error?
How does this tell you that it is not just a mere fancy? Is something more likely to be true because it’s been believed for a long time by a majority of people?
I know from experience and observation that I have and am constituted by a body, but my experience and observation does not lead me to believe that I have what you call an “immortal soul.” And unless God has revealed that we have an “immortal soul,” I can’t help but see it as existing only in one’s imagination, and don’t see why we should believe we are dependent on it rather than on our body to exist.
I think we’d be “immortal-soul dependent” if we had immortal souls just as much as you think we would be “body-dependent” if we didn’t. Your talk of being “God-dependent” vs. “body-dependent” is, I believe, little more than bombast.
It’s true that physical death cannot separate you from the LOVE of God in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:38-39), but “death, the last enemy” will not be “destroyed” and “swallowed up in victory” until the dead are raised at the sounding of the last trumpet (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18). Not before. The “death” that you will not and cannot die as long as you believe on Christ and abide in him is the “death” of which Christ speaks in John 5:24, and of which Paul speaks in Eph 2:1. This “death” has nothing to do with whether or not one is conscious after physical death.
It is our DNA, memory and consciousness/self-awareness (i.e., our first-person perspective) that makes us who we are. If a person is raised with your DNA, memory and first-person perspective after you die, then this “clone” (as you say) will be you, not someone else. It will be you who will have been restored to a living existence.
When Paul said that he had “a hope in God…that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15) he was referring to human persons - i.e., human individuals with DNA and memory and consciousness - being raised from the dead (i.e., restored to a living existence). It is not a person’s body that is “just” or “unjust.” It is the person who is “just” or “unjust.” Thus, it is the person - the individual - who is being raised/restored to a living existence. And if it’s the individual who is to be raised, then it’s the individual who was dead and in need of being raised. But “immortal souls” don’t die and aren’t in need of being restored to a living existence. Thus, human persons/individuals aren’t “immortal souls,” nor are they constituted by “immortal souls.”
Like the word “salvation” or “saved,” “perish” can mean different things in different contexts. Sometimes it means physical death/cessation of existence, sometimes it doesn’t. It always seems to refer to some kind of loss or undesirable condition, though. In John 11:50 Caiaphas said, “It is better for you that one man should die for the people, not the the whole nation should perish.” Here, the word “perish” (which is the same word used in John 3:16) probably means being overthrown by the Romans and thus ceasing to exist as a nation (cf. v. 48). In 1 Cor 15:18 “perished” stands in contrast to being raised from the dead, so I think we can infer that it means to remain dead (and thus to cease to exist) permanently.
When Paul speaks of being “absent from the body and at home with the Lord,” the “body” of which he speaks is our mortal body. To be “at home with the Lord” is to be with the Lord in the sense of which Paul speaks in 1 Thess 4:17 (“Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord”), and of which Christ speaks in John 14:3 (“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also”). We will be both “absent from the body and at home with the Lord” when we are raised with our immortal body and caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 2 Cor 5:8 will be fulfilled when John 14:3 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 are fulfilled.
Couldn’t someone say in response, “I don’t believe that ANYONE who doesn’t already believe - or isn’t already inclined to believe - that the dead are conscious would ever interpret this passage as you interpret it”?
It wasn’t being dead that Paul desired, but rather that future state of existence (i.e., post-resurrection) into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him.
