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.
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.
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.
Not to disrupt a perfectly useless disagreement (as I cannot see any way in which it influences in the most infinitesimal way “how then shall we live”) but I think you’re both being too literal (lifein regarding Time, and Aaron regarding Space).
I would refer you both to the first two chapters of Lewis “problem of pain”. Aaron, Lewis describes very adroitly the idea of the Numinous, and how our apprehension of disembodied spirit is the very foundation of our religious instinct. But yes, he also predicates our apprehension of “self” and “other” as definitionally dependent on boundaries - “bodies” if you will, in some sense. But the ether that separates “heavenly bodies” may be of such wholly different cloth that we would call it something immaterial in our lexicon.
And Lifein, even our feeble science instructs us that time is literally an illusion - to light (at whose speed time stops) there is no time. So this whole notion of soulsleep is to me a canard - it’s nonsense question based on our own misapprehension of reality (as space and time dependent minds).
Like asking “How much does Blue weigh?”, just because it’s a sentence doesn’t make it sensical.
It’s not that I fear being in the presence of God without my physical body between me and him; it’s that I don’t believe there even is a conscious “you” or “me” apart from our being constituted by a physical body. Thus, I don’t think we can be in the presence of God in a conscious state of existence without being constituted by a body. You have, I believe, taken something that’s only true of our post-resurrection state and applied it to when we are dead.
So in one sense it’s true that I have no desire for some part of me to consciously exist in a disembodied state. This is partially because I don’t think it’s even possible given the way in which God has created us and defined our existence. To say the “spirit” that departs from us and returns to God at death (i.e., our life) is conscious after we die is, to me, like saying our body that returns to the dust is conscious after we die. The former is no more true than the latter. Neither our life nor our body is conscious after death; it is we who are conscious when we are constituted by a living body with a functioning brain.
But it’s also true that I have no desire for some part of me to consciously exist in a disembodied state because this part of me would not be completely and fully me; it would no more be “me” in the truest and most meaningful sense than a “reincarnated” person could be “you” in the truest and most meaningful sense. “I” cannot consciously exist as myself in a divided, incomplete state. It is “I” - Aaron R. Welch - who wants to be in the presence of my God; it’s not my desire for some disembodied part of me to be in the presence of God. Was Adam in the presence of God when the “breath of life” departed from him and he returned to the dust of the earth? No. It may be said that his “life” was in the presence of God, but Adam’s life was something that Adam possessed while he was alive, and which made him a “living soul.” It cannot be identified with Adam himself. That which returned to God when Adam died was not “Adam,” and that which is to return to God when I die will not be “Aaron.” So I have just as little desire to exist in a disembodied state as you desire to exist in a reincarnated state.
God’s work and life-giving isn’t “relegated to a physical body.” If it was, then those who are dead could not receive life. But God’s work on our behalf is not confined to our existence in a physical body. And God’s work isn’t limited to the material, because he has power over our mental disposition, thoughts and feelings as well, and will restore our mind as well as our body at the resurrection.
I think your view does undermine the resurrection, for the resurrection is the means by which a dead human being is restored to a living existence. To say we do not cease to exist as living beings is to say we have no need for a resurrection. But when we die we do cease to exist as living beings, and in this sense we are existentially separated from God by “the last enemy, death.” But death is doomed to be destroyed. Christ is going to destroy death - and thus destroy all existential separation from God - when he raises the dead. And when death is destroyed we will “always be with the Lord.” Until then, we cannot “always be with the Lord.” Death prevents this from being a reality. When you die, your existence as a living being ceases. That’s why those who are dead are in need of being raised by God (i.e., restored by God to a living existence).
I think you’re confusing existential life with the kind of life that people receive by believing on Christ. People are existentially alive for as long as the organized matter by which they are constituted and given existence as living beings is alive. But the bodies by which we are constituted and given our existence as living beings do die. And when our bodies die, we die. That’s why people are said to be “dead” in Scripture after their bodies die. When our bodies die, our life leaves us. We become cut off from a living existence. That’s the whole point of the resurrection: the dead are in need of being restored to a living existence such that they “cannot die anymore” (Luke 20:36).
To be “dead” in any sense is to be cut off from some sort of “life.” The “life” from which the prodigal son was cut off was, I believe, relational, not existential. He was cut off from his relationship and fellowship with his father. In this state of relational estrangement from his father he was considered “dead.” It was their relationship that needed to be restored and healed, and which was restored and healed when he “came to himself” and returned to his father. But this is not the only death of which Scripture speaks.
When the bodies by which we are constituted as living beings are cut off from life, we are cut off from a living existence. But being dead and unconscious doesn’t mean we cease to be reconciled to God or cease to be “in Christ,” because our being reconciled to God and “in Christ” is something that defines us whether we exist as living, organized beings or not.
But if you were to argue that a person who has ceased to exist as a conscious, living being cannot be considered reconciled to God, I would respond that a person who has ceased to exist as a conscious, living being cannot be considered relationally estranged from God, either. It would be like arguing that a person who has ceased to exist as a conscious, living cannot be considered “happy.” That would be true, but they can’t be considered “unhappy” either. They are neither happy nor unhappy. So in whatever sense one believes that those who have ceased to exist as conscious, living beings cannot be considered reconciled to God, they cannot be considered estranged from God either. If a person who no longer exists as a conscious, living being cannot be considered reconciled to God by virtue of their no longer existing as a conscious, living being, then by virtue of their not existing as a conscious, living being they cannot be considered estranged from God. But again, I believe our being reconciled to God and our being “in Christ” is a status that defines us whether we exist as living, conscious beings or not.
The only difference is that I believe Universalists - as well as those who believe the dead are actually dead - have the Bible on their side. Just as the Bible doesn’t teach “eternal damnation” so I do not find a shred of Scriptural evidence that the hope of believers is that we remain alive and in a conscious, disembodied state after death. The hope of the believer is that, through Jesus, God is going to raise the dead, both the just and the unjust.
Even if we are existentially separated from God when we cease to be living beings it does not follow that we are separated from his love. In order to be “wholly separated” I believe we would have to be separated from God’s love. But ceasing to exist as a living, conscious being cannot separate us from God’s love. It is not something that we need fear or be horrified by, because not only will this existential separation be temporary, but we will we be completely unaware of it. To fear it while we’re alive is essentially to fear non-existence, which is something you’ve told me you do not fear. So if you don’t fear non-existence, why do you seem so disturbed and horrified by the thought of being temporarily existentially separated from God? You won’t even exist as a conscious, living being to be aware of it; by the time you are conscious again, the separation will have ceased. So why is it so disturbing and horrifying to you?
You seem to think that this would mean God or Jesus broke a promise to you that you would never cease to exist as a living, conscious being. But where do we read of this promise in Scripture? As I’ve shown repeatedly, it can’t be in John 10-11. Even according to your view, the “death” to which Christ refers in John 11:26 (for example) can’t be existential death, because this would mean that some are existentially dead and in need of being given existential life, and that people are in danger of becoming existentially dead before they become believers. But no human being (or even animal) can, according to your view, existentially die, because they are by virtue of their creation “immortal souls.” And if the “death” of which Christ speaks in this verse is not existential death, then the “life” which is the opposite state of this “death” cannot be existential life.
So where is it promised in Scripture that we will never cease to exist as living, conscious beings?
Well then before we existed we were as far from the I AM as we could possibly be. But that didn’t stop God from loving us and bringing us into existence, did it?
Do you believe human beings have eternally pre-existed in a living, conscious state, or not? If not, then it means you believe there was a time when we were as far from the I AM as we could possibly be.
My hope rests on God, who through his Son is going to restore both of us to a living existence after we die.
Did the individual, Stephen, go to heaven when he died? We’re told that “Stephen” prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Did the Lord receive Stephen when he died, or Stephen’s spirit? Perhaps you think “both,” but that’s not what Luke tells us. Luke tells us that Stephen “fell asleep” as he was being stoned to death. If “Stephen” = Stephen’s spirit, then Stephen’s spirit fell asleep as it was being stoned to death. Is this what you believe? That a spirit named “Stephen” was stoned to death and “fell asleep?” We’re then told that some devout men “buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him.” If “Stephen” went to heaven when he died, how did these devout men bury him? Did they bury a disembodied spirit?
What about David? Peter declared that David “both died and was buried” (Acts 2:29). This makes perfect sense if David was constituted by his body, and existed wherever his body was. But if “David” = David’s spirit, then David’s spirit died and was buried. And Paul declared that David “was laid with his fathers and saw corruption” (Acts 13:36). Again, this makes perfect sense if “David” was constituted by his body. When David’s body “saw corruption,” David saw corruption, because he was constituted by his body. But if “David” = David’s spirit, then David’s spirit “was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.” Does that not sound just a little absurd to you, and suggest that you perhaps have a mistaken view of human nature and identity?
I don’t want you to cease to be a living, conscious being any more than I want you or anyone to have to physically die. But in order for you to avoid the former I think you’d have to avoid the latter. Maybe we’ll be among those who will not “sleep.” Only God knows. But I do know that when our body dies, we die, and that when our body returns to the dust (assuming we will remain dead long enough for this to happen) we return to the dust. This view (i.e., that we are constituted by our physical body and exist wherever our body - or its remains - exist) is both Biblical and consistent with human experience and observation.
But according to my view, if you die you will not remain dead forever. On the “last day” you will be restored to a living, conscious existence and, with death the last enemy destroyed, you will “always be with the Lord.” But this presupposes that you will not “always be with the Lord” until after the resurrection. That is, we will not “exist in the presence of God continuously” until we have been resurrected. To argue that this would be true even if there was no resurrection is, I believe, to undermine the truth of the resurrection itself.
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?
