This was davo quoting Morris and responding to Qaz.
[quote=“qaz, post:503, topic:14070”:
The alternative is to think of God as the God of non-existent beings, which is absurd. ”
[/quote]
I fail to see why those who are in paradise are ‘non-existent’. After his death and before his resurrection, surely Jesus ‘existed’. Even if some kind of soul-sleep is true, sleepers are still existent beings.
There MAY be non-consciousness between death and resurrection, if certain theories are true.
I would say that the issue of Jesus existing is a mute point. No one here will debate the resurrection, but the idea of us being like the Christ is a bit of a slog.
Thus the understanding of what Christ really came for and did.
You’re missing the point… whatever can be said about the order of things with regards to resurrection the fact remains — Jesus shows his belief that the past (dead) patriarchs were very much ALIVE, i.e., they had NOT become as Paidion maintains… “non-existent”; which was in fact the Sadducees belief!
Apparently, the apostle Paul shared my belief. In his great Resurrection chapter, 1 Corinthians 15, he indicated that is the dead are not raised to life again, we may as well eat, drink, and be merry, for there is nothing more. We simply die.
(1Co 15:32 ESV) … If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Oh dear there’s that dratted present tense that you sooo wish was future tense, but alas it’s present tense just like Lk 20:37-38.
MM, I think that us being like Christ was the whole point of the message. “Do you not know tat your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?”
Davo, If you want to know who Abraham was and what he was like, look at his Son Jesus. The Spirit of the past patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Elijah etc was still very much alive in many who came after them because they all had one thing in common- the Spirit of God.
The Spirit of Abraham certainly wasn’t alive in many of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
All this talk about language “tense”…reminds me of a joke from
A man goes to see the psychiatrist and says, "Doctor, sometimes I think I’m a teepee. Then, I think I’m a wigwam. Then, I think I’m a teepee. Then, I think I’m a wigwam.
The psychiatrist says, “I see your problem. I believe you’re two tents.”
Convince a man against his will
He’s of the same opinion still.
That man is Davo.
And yet STILL NO scriptural text convincing anyone that… “After death, people do not exist—until they are raised to life again.” 
Yes… though we know little of sheol other than it was variously used as a metaphor for the grave and death and the like etc.
Yep. Now where Jesus’ “paradise” might have fitted into that picture is also unclear, though for the thief crucified with Jesus one thing was certain for him — he would be present with Jesus AND consciously so… “Today” — Paidion’s abundant and redundant protestations aside.
Davo fails to recognize the valid texts that have been offered by reinterpreting them to fit his personal paradigm.
I don’t doubt that if I made the statement that the sum of two and two is four, Davo would come back with a “proof” that the sum is actually five. Perhaps his “proof” might go something like this:
Clearly 20-20 = 25-25
This could also be stated:
4×5-4×5 = 5×5-5×5
This can be factored to:
4(5-5) = 5(5-5)
Cancel the factor 5-5 from each side of the equation
∴ 4=5
∴ 2+2=5
IF only you were as diligent with the texts of scripture… go figure 
So in case I missed the deafening silence… pick the best text that actually makes your claim that between death but resurrection… “people do not exist” — we’re all ears!
Why should I judge which is “best.” All the ones I quoted indicate it. But you relegate even the clear texts concerning a future resurrection to the age in which the writers lived “because they’re in the present tense.” That won’t wash! And I’m not interested in seeing you trotting out the same old arguments again…and I don’t think anyone else is, either. I have already given examples of future events being stated with the present tense in every-day English. It’s a matter of grammar. I don’t remember you even responding to this. And I’m not interested in wading through your arguments again, all of which I consider as invalid as the “proof” I offered above that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Yet another dodge and side step to our differences on resurrection BUT NO honest response to your spurious claim, that I’m challenging you for a scriptural answer, that between death and resurrection… “people do not exist”.
No, the idea is that Christ was a savior to His people at His time. And from that incredible sacrifice, all of humanity was opened to the love of God. And the proof that God loves all of humanity, through that sacrifice, is the very proof that we would be well served to understand this.
Amazing. I go off on a two-week vacation and return to a lengthy heated discussion about life after death, including numerous scripture texts to support each variation. I guess I should add my two cents (US) for what it may be worth.
Phil. 1:23 (NIV) I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far.
2 Cor. 5:8 (KJV) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body , and to be present with the Lord .
The expectation I assume from these, and many other, verses is that when a believer dies he/she immediately enters the presence of the Lord. That is, his spirit does, not his/her body which remains in the grave (or urn, or in some other form) until the day of resurrection. My wife Alida’s spirit is now in heaven. It was “transported” there at the moment she died. I saw her face literally glowing.
I have previously written about the appearance of her spirit which I clearly witnessed (about a month ago now). Not a dream, I am certain of that. The image I saw for about ten seconds was not the woman who had lain on that deathbed, rather of Alida in the prime of her life.
Why? Why did I see her in that vision? I don’t know. Perhaps to reassure me that her death was not the end, rather the beginning of a life that shall never end? Perhaps to increase my longing to join her in that land of everlasting bliss?
Referring to the title of this topic “Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?”, I have related an extra-Biblical experience which, in part, reinforces, at least to me, what the numerous scripture verses teach us.
I followed your posts about your grandmother’s illness and death, Qaz. My sympathies are with you.
Thanks Norm.
… If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor 15:32)
With this statement, the writer—the apostle Paul made clear that apart from the resurrection, there is no future for anyone after death. That either implies non-existence, or an existence which is not worth making any change in our life-style in order to obtain. It is clear from the context that the resurrection is an event that will take place at a time future to that of the writer.
In verse 13, Paul wrote:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
Just as Christ experienced a literal, bodily resurrection from death, so will we all. Davo points out that the words translated “are not raised” in verse 32 are in the present tense, and should be translated as “are not being raised,” and refers to some “resurrection” that was taking place at the time. I have taken the time to look at previous posts to see what the essence of this supposed resurrection process might be, but can find nothing definite. If it is some ethereal process or figuratively the “resurrection” of Israel, I see no reason why if that process had not been taking place, then God would not have raised Christ to life again. So the resurrection mentioned in verse 16 surely refers to the same kind of bodily resurrection that Christ experienced.
He was the first-born from the dead. (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). All others will follow. But no one else has yet been raised from the dead. The resurrection is yet future.
In any case, the fact that “are not raised” is in the present tense does not imply that it is not a future event. If a Trump-lover in the U.S.A. said, “If Mr. Trump is not re-elected then I will move to another country,” (we could even use the present tense for the consequent—“then I am moving to another country.” No one would misunderstand.)
Though “is not re-elected” is in the present tense, he would not mean “If Mr. Trump is not now being re-elected…” The use of the present tense in both Greek and in English is used when a conditional sentence is used to affirm the consequences of something not being done in the future. Indeed, if we used the future tense for the English sentence then the first clause would not be good English: “If Mr. Trump will not be re-elected, then I will move to another country.”
Sometimes the present tense is also used to relate past events:
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” (Heb 1:6)
Paul’s limited portrait of the coming apocalypse, was indeed spoken to the first century church. You are beating a very dead horse here.