What about the rest of it? What does “when he comes” mean to you? How do you see “the second coming” of Christ?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that you probably see it pretty much the same way I used to (and how probably most do) as a physical manifestation to take place when Christ comes to resurrect the dead and gather all of those who are alive and remain and set up His kingdom on earth?
The problem that I began to have with that (among others) is that the scriptures say that His kingdom is “not of this world” and that it comes “not with observation”. So then I had to start looking at things like the fact that when Jesus promised to send the comforter, He said: “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”
Additionally, we are told to “watch” for His appearing, as Christ comes the second time “unto them that look for Him”. But He also comes “as a thief in the night” (as He “comes” unto them that ‘sleep’… “awake though that sleepest and arise from the dead”, right?).
The mystery that was kept hid, but that is now revealed is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. Right?
I see this as “the revelation of Jesus Christ” and “the resurrection of the dead” (after a spiritual truth). As the manifestation of the sons of God.
But NOT ALL are “alive”, some still “sleep” (“dead” in sin), right?
So THEN COMETH THE END… when He shall come to gather all of those who “remain” (both the LIVING and the DEAD), but it is (according to Paul) THE DEAD IN CHRIST who shall rise first, then those who are ALIVE AND REMAIN shall be caught up in the air with them and they shall forever be with the Lord.
Again, like you (I assume, so correct me if I am wrong) I also once saw “the dead in Christ” as believers who had died physically, who were awaiting “the resurrection of the dead” (from "hades’) at Christ’s “second coming”… BUT LATER I found that seeing it this way led to many contradictions that I just could not reconcile by maintaining ‘that’ understanding of who “the dead” (even “the dead in Christ”) are.
No, I see ‘the dead in Christ’ to be mankind, everyone - obviously, faith has nothing to do with being resurrected. No human being is ‘in Adam’ after the cross, all are in Christ. The dead are dead, but all will be freed. Redemption from death is free, universal, and eternal.
Because we happen to believe in this free redemption, does that make us more redeemed from death? That’s the argument people make. But I find it silly. Either one is dead or alive. So this idea of the ‘spiritually dead’ bringing death (when it has just been destroyed) with them into the resurrection as immortal newly resurrected zombies is patent nonsense and quite impossible.
So if that is how you see it, then who do you see as “the dead in Christ” that are raised first? All of the physically dead, with just ONE resurrection?
I agree. But I think I agree “differently”, which may be hard to explain if you are saying that you don’t believe that there is any such thing as “spiritual death”? Is that what you are saying?
I believe that all have been “resurrected” with Christ… the Head and the body and as such I believe that death has already been destroyed. But while death has been destroyed and we have all been quickened together into “one body” though “one spirit”, I think that some “are fallen asleep” (which is why death and sleep are likened to one another) and, therefore, are still “dead” (in sin, as a spiritual truth). As even Paul says that those who love not their brethren still abide in “death”.
So while I agree that one is either alive or dead (awake or asleep), I see that after a spiritual truth as it related to ones knowledge of God rather than in relation to “living beings” vs “corpses”. As I see it, one can only be “dead” so long as they are "in the flesh and “in this world” (and subject to the lust thereof).
I’m not sure what you mean by “zombies” or what it means (to you) for someone to “bring death with them into the resurrection”? If all are already “in Christ” then are all “alive”? And if so then why does Paul say that those who love not the brethren still abide “in death”?
I’m not sure what you are saying?
But are you saying that you don’t believe in postmortem judgment? And you believe in only ONE resurrection? At which time we all go to be with the Lord?
Sorry, Aaron. I still have to come back to the stuff I said I’d have to come back to. I think I still owe you something on “the dead” in 1 Cor 15? Not sure if there is anything else? But if you’ve read my blog on it, as you seemed to indicate, maybe you already have your answer?
I think I read that wrong the first time… if “the dead in Christ” are “mankind” then are you saying that all are still “dead” and there are NONE who are “alive” (after a spiritual truth, with regard to mankind and those who are “in Christ”)? That all (though “in Christ”) are “dead”?
Didn’t Paul say that those who love the brethren “have passed from death unto life” and those who don’t “abide in death”? Meaning that some are “dead” and some are “alive”, even though ALL have been gathered together “in Christ”?
Ok , just so I can better understand you, could you please explain what you think makes a truth “spiritual?”
Do you think this “spiritual truth” is more important than the actual healings that Christ performed for people? Or do you see them as equally important?
What do you think it means for Christ to be “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep?” And what do you think Paul meant when he declared, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet”? I think the answer to these questions will help me to better understand your view.
I’m not so sure Paul is saying that “that which is seen is meant to reveal to us that which is not seen.” You seem to be suggesting that this life is one big allegory or parable, and that everything has a double meaning, but I’m not sure your method of interpretation is sound.
(My own understanding of 2Cor 5:18 can be found here, btw: What about 'things which are seen are temporary... )
On what basis do you believe this? And how do you determine what the “spiritual truth” of something is?
Where is it taught that physical death is a “shadow of spiritual truth?” I agree that “death” can be used in a figurative sense, but I don’t see how that makes physical death a “shadow” and the figurative death the “substance.” For instance, when Paul talks about being “dead in trespasses and sins,” this “death” is not literal death. He’s referring to a moral/relational state that is like death in some way. But this fact does not thereby make literal death a “shadow of spiritual truth.” I don’t think either is more important or “more profound” than the other; each simply is what it is.
Certainly, but to me certain details in the narrative context indicate that the “death” which God warned Adam of was not literal death. Adam did not cease to be a “living soul” after he sinned; he was just as much a “living soul” after he sinned as he was before he sinned. The “death” he died was evidently a cutting off from a state of innocence (Gen 3:7-8).
Elsewhere on this forum I noted the following concerning the Hebrew word translated “spirit”:
“The Hebrew ruach is a fairly flexible word encompassing several different (though related) meanings, among which are wind (Gen 8:1; Ex 10:19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; Ps 83:13; 107:25; Ecc 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer 10:13; Dan 7:2; etc.) the essence of the life and vitality in both human beings and animals that is manifested through movement and breathing (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; Ps 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer 10:14; Eze 10:17; 37:5; etc.), and a mental disposition or state of mind (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; etc.). In each case, the word denotes that which, though unseen (and largely unexplained) has visible effects.”
So basically I understand the word “spirit” (when referring to humans) to refer to either 1) the attribute or property that is common to all living creatures and visibly manifested in breathing, and which is represented as “departing” from the body and “returning” to God at death (i.e., what is commonly referred to as “life”) or 2) some mental process, thought pattern, or state/disposition of the mind (which, like the life of all living creatures, can only be made known by the visible effects it produces - i.e., by how it is manifested in a person’s words and actions).
So the “spirit” to which God bears witness is, I think, simply our consciousness. And God’s “quickening our spirit” simply refers to his radically changing our mental disposition/thought pattern and bringing it into harmony with his law. And I would understand 1Cor 5:5 (the last verse to which you make reference above) to mean (if I may paraphrase), “Remove this man from your midst in order that the adversity to which he will inevitably be exposed may lead to his repentance, so that he may be able to enjoy (i.e., mentally) an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom that is soon to be established.”
Well since nothing you say above describes what I believe, I guess that means my view is pretty safe from being in danger of “falling apart.” And perhaps you threw the baby out with the bathwater when you decided to reject the idea of any kind of “general resurrection” for mankind at a future time!
If by that you mean that Christ is the “heavenly dwelling” that we will be putting on when he returns from heaven to raise the dead and subject all people to himself, then no, I can’t say I believe that Christ is our covering.
Paul teaches that “the perishable” (i.e., those who are dead) will “put on the imperishable” (be raised from the dead) and “the mortal” (i.e., those who will not be “sleeping” when the last trumpet sounds, but will be found alive on that day) will “put on immortality.” It is those who will still be alive (cf. 1 Thess 4:15, 17) that will “put on immortality” without being “unclothed.” And if by the expression “pass from death to life” you’re referring to John 5:24, then no, I don’t at all think this is the fulfilment of Paul’s words in 1Cor 15:54. Christ is referring to a change in our character and affections in John 5:24 (cf. 1John 3:14), and in 1Cor 15:53 Paul is referring to the complete and permanent destruction of the same “death” from which Christ was raised on the third day.
There is only one literal “death.” Any other “death” is figurative in some way; that is, it is like, or resembles, literal death in some sense. Ditto with “life.”
If “literal resurrection” (I would say “physical resurrection” but it might convey the wrong idea - i.e., that our mortal bodies are simply to be reanimated as opposed to being changed completely) is not important, why then was Christ literally raised?
As far as “outward man” vs. “inward man,” I simply understand Paul to be referring to that aspect of us that will not continue when we are raised from the dead with that aspect of us that will (i.e., our mind/personality). Moreover, the way you worded it seems to express the idea that our “outward man” has already perished, but Paul says it is perishing/wasting away (but perhaps what you wrote was just a typo).
I agree that Sheol/Hades can be understood in secondary senses, but these senses in no way negate the original sense, or transcend the original meaning in importance. No matter what secondary sense they may carry in a certain context, the words Sheol/Hades will always express, in a primary sense, the state of the dead (i.e., “the grave” in a general, non-specific conceptual sense). So when you read a verse such as Eccl 9:10 (“there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going”) how do you understand it?
I do, in fact, believe certain Biblical accounts have allegorical elements to them (Gen 1-3 being one of them), but I think it is the genre and certain contextual details by which we determine which passages can and cannot undoubtedly be understood to have allegorical elements.
I don’t think you’re nuts , and while at present I find those ideas which are distinctive to your theology to be far from compelling (as I’m fairly sure is how you see my own views as well!), I definitely don’t think that what you have to say is “without merit,” and I do apologize if I gave you that impression.
Where is Paul? He’s dead. Sleeping until the resurrection - by his own account. Mankind is in Christ, not in Adam - that includes the dead. The ontological change from Adam to Christ is universal - because it is ontological, it is not a matter of ‘faith’ but of being. Everyone puts on immortality because they are in Christ, whose redemption of mankind was universal, free and eternal.
And yes, there is only ONE resurrection. Just as there is only one judgment and the rewards for advancing His kingdom. Look at Christ’s own depiction of the Judgment - it’s about works coming through faith, but not faith per se.
In the resurrection, everyone has ‘faith’ if one defines such as seeing Him as He is, confessing Him and loving Him because they ARE seeing Him as He is - their redeemer from death.
Will there be resentment (hatred) of that grace and mercy? Or joy? Isn’t that the problem?
To say that some bring hatred into the resurrection is to admit that death has not been destroyed. But that can’t be - hell has been emptied and destroyed. Where then is the hatred for God and our fellow man coming from - if the idea of such happening is not a fiction?
One only has to ask, who or what is the last enemy? to understand the purpose of an eternal redemption from it. Hell and death will be destroyed quickly and without fanfare. Mankind, in unison, will celebrate with their hero - every knee will bow.
People don’t like the reality that everyone is in Christ. They want to be superior and greater sinners saved by grace and expect to bring that death and resentment into the resurrection.
Php 1:21-24 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Paul was torn between his own desire TO DEPART AND BE WITH THE LORD (which was FAR BETTER FOR HIM) and remaining in the flesh (because he felt they needed him). Sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like a man who believed that he was just going to go sleep in the dust for awhile in a state of unconsciousness. How would that be a far better gain to him, so much so that he was torn between the two?
I’ve said repeatedly that I believe that all are in Christ, that all men have (universally) been gather together into one body, by one spirit. And I’ve not said once that it is a matter of faith (though I believe that it is, just not ours).
What depiction of the judgment?
I’m not sure what your addressing or what your point is. Maybe you can clarify?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Is this supposed to be addressing something that I said? If so, what?
To be honest, I can’t even tell if you are talking in the present tense and saying that all are in Christ “now” and death “has already been destroyed” or if you are talking about this being the case after the resurrection? It sounds like you are saying that this is present-tense reality, but then it seems like you are claiming that it can’t be because anger/hatred/resentment (all of those things) still exist and you’re saying that we can’t bring that with us “into the resurrection”.
So are saying that we are in Christ but still “dead” (both physically and spiritual)? Or just physically? Or both? Or neither?
What does “awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead” mean to you?
What did Christ mean when He said “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die”?
According to these verses (and many others like them) those who are “dead” are resurrected to “life” through Christ. They still die physically, but from “the dead” they have been “resurrected”. No?
If they have been resurrected from the dead only to die and have to be resurrected again, this means that there are “two” resurrections (though you say there is “one”). So is this “resurrection” spoken of above just “figurative” and not really mean anything? We don’t get “the real thing” until after we physically die and sleep in the dust for however long?
Are you trying to correct me? If so, why? I have said over and over again that I believe that all men are in Christ. You don’t seem to be hearing me say that, though I have said it numerous times. Do you believe that some of the other things that I am saying about the resurrection and judgment somehow “negate” the fact that I believe that all men are in Christ?
Aaron, I answered your post but it’s so long with all the quotes and responses that I am trying to “edit it down” to a shorter version, perhaps addressing your questions without having to leave in all the quotes.
Obviously we mean different things when we say ‘in Christ.’ I mean it ontologically, as we were in Adam. (Who is also now in Christ.)
You, on the other hand, use the phrase in a figurative and collective sense. So because He rose, we rose figuratively and collectively as well. It’s a nice thought but has nothing to do with the actual resurrection and makes a mess of the after life by covering with it a coat of ‘spiritual’ mush. I don’t see any virtue in obfuscation on this matter.
I’m not Christ - ontologically, I am like Him now, but I am not Him. When I die, I will be dead and sleep until the resurrection like Paul and everyone else. There’s one resurrection, not ten billion.
Both. We drag around sin and death like a ball and chain - it’s the human condition…for now. We won’t know true, complete liberation from that until the resurrection. Meanwhile, those who trust Him to liberate us, hang onto that hope.
Frankly, claiming much more than that is just a lot of ‘spiritual’ gas.
When you talk about being in Christ you mean it ontologically, but you are not Christ ontologically? Honestly, I have no idead what you are trying to say.
As I see it we are all found “in Adam” (the first/natural man) FIRST before we are “born again” and thereby found “in Christ” (the second/last man). As I see it, All men are summed up in this “two Adam’s”; first the natural, then the spiritual. It is the difference between “the first born” and “the second born” (the elder and the younger). This pattern is seen through out the scriptures from Cain and Abel, to Ishmael and Isaac, to Esau and Jacob. It is the difference between “a child” and “a son”.
And while you might not be Christ ( I never even inferred that you are or that I am??) “the second man” IS “the Lord from heaven”. We are all by one spirit joined together in one body - HIS BODY - which is why even if we believe not yet He abideth faithful, for HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.
I’m sorry that you seem to dislike those who “spiritualize death to death” (or anything else, it seems) but the scriptures are full of stories that are ripe with allegorical meanings that reveal how God is creating man in His image and after His likeness. And if one died for all then were all dead. You are not “going to die” you are already reckoned “dead” and the call is for to AWAKE and ARISE FROM THE DEAD (which you don’t seem to want to even address?)
Paul said his desire was to depart and be with the Lord. You might not believe that he actually is with the Lord, but I do. And I did not say that there are ten billion resurrections; I said there is ONE.
So then “awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead” is a call to corpses in physical graves that will not be resurrected for possibly tens of thousands of years?
No prob, take your time. I’m not in any hurry While you polish it up, I’d like to briefly respond to the following (which was addressed to RanRan):
First, it should be noted that the magnifying of Christ and advancement of the gospel is the theme of the first chapter of Philippians. In keeping with this theme, Paul reveals that his imprisonment had served to further the gospel of Christ (Phil 1:12). Likewise, Paul considered that his death would also result in the furtherance of the gospel and in Christ being magnified (v. 20). So based on the preceding verses, this is most likely the “gain” that Paul expected his death would be. Thus, the gain that Paul expected to be brought about as a result of his death was not his “going to heaven” and being in the presence of Christ immediately after his death.
But what does Paul mean when he says, “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” To answer this question we need to first answer another question: What would this have been “far better” than? Answer: this would have been “far better” than the two options between which he was “hard pressed” (or “in a strait”). And what two options were these? Answer: remaining in the flesh, and dying. But if that which was “far better” was an option he was able to choose, then he would not have been “hard pressed” between it and the other option. The choice would have been a no-brainer for Paul. But that which Paul felt was “far better” was not something he could choose. He could choose to die, or he could choose to go on living (i.e., remaining in the flesh). Consequently, it was between these two options that he was “hard pressed” or “in a strait.” Neither option was personally preferable; he didn’t have a strong desire to go on suffering in prison, nor did he have a strong desire to die (for in 2Cor 5:1-4, Paul expresses his lack of desire to be “unclothed” after his death). At the same time, he knew that, whether by his life or by his death, he would magnify Christ and advance the gospel; consequently, he was torn between these two options. But as he decided it was “more necessary” to remain alive on account of the Philippian believers, he chose to continue living. But there was something that he desired above either of these two options, and that was to “depart and be with Christ.”
But why couldn’t Paul choose to “depart and be with Christ?” Because that was conditioned upon Christ’s return from heaven, not on Paul’s living or dying. And Paul knew this. If people went to heaven immediately after they died, then the following words that Christ spoke to his disciples shortly before his crucifixion would not be true. In John 13:33, 36, Jesus declared: “Where I am going, you cannot come” (cf. 7:33-34). And in John 14:3, we read: “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.” In other words, where Christ was going, his disciples would not be able to follow until after he “came again” and took them to where he was about to go. Christ is here talking about leaving his disciples and ascending to heaven (that place which is elswhere called “paradise”). But if, after they died, Jesus’ apostles went to heaven as quickly as their Lord did after his resurrection, then what Jesus said is not true; it would mean that his apostles followed Jesus to heaven right after they died - which would be long before Jesus is to come again to receive us to himself, so that we may be where he is.
So, Paul’s “departing and being with Christ” does not refer to something he expected to happen immediately following his death (for then he would be “unclothed”). He was instead referring to the time when Christ would return from heaven to raise the dead and subject all people to himself (Phil 3:20-21; cf. 2:9-11). At this time, everyone who has ever lived will be made immortal, and will be caught up to meet Christ in the air (1Thess 4:13-18). Paul did not expect to “depart and be with Christ” until then. But when this glorious event does take place, we will “be with the Lord always” (pantote, for all time). That’s my hope, at least.
To me a truth is a truth, whether it is true physically or spiritually. But how I see something might depend on how I “divide” between the two, but that doesn’t make the spiritual application “true” and the physical application “false”. And while is true that we all die physically and as such what is left of us is “a dead body”, I do not believe that we cease to exist in a state of consciousness when we die and this earthly tabernacle returns to dust. The fact that “the dead know not anything” and “can do no work” (etc) is only (as I see it now) an observational truth from perspective of “the living” looking at “a dead body”.
So when it comes to “death” I don’t see spiritual death and physical death as being “equally important”. Our physical existence it but a vapor compared to eternity, even almost non-existent, by comparison, wouldn’t you say? But the only way that we, as natural creatures living in a physical world, can see, know or understand that which is “not seen” is by that which is “made” (seen).
And when it comes to “the resurrection of the dead” I believe that it applies to “the dead” after a spiritual truth, not a physical one, as that is the penalty for sin and the death that we need to be redeemed from in order to have “eternal life”. So it’s not about corpses as much as it is about those who are dead in sin. And Christ being “the first-fruits” of them that slept I see in relation to the fact that it is only THROUGH CHRIST that any of us “live”. He is the incorruptible seed by which we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.
The scriptures say: “blessed and holy is he that has part in THE FIRST RESURRECTION”, which leads many to believe that there is “more than one” and that is it believer who come forth in “the first” to reign with Christ “a thousand years” because it is not until the thousand years is finished that “the rest of the dead” will live again. You said that you don’t believe that and I don’t know what you believe, but it was THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION (Christ’s) that Paul wanted to know and Jesus said to Martha: “I AM” the resurrection and the life … and those who are “dead” SHALL LIVE and those who LIVE AND BELIEVE shall never die.
Daniel spoke of a time when “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt”, right? And Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live”, right? And Paul said: “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light”, right?
To me, none of this isn’t talking about corpses in physical graves . It is those who are “dead in sin” who need to be redeemed from “the body of this death”. And, according to the scriptures, Christ said “if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me”. And God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, making of one blood all nations, creating one new man. So all have gathered together unto Christ into ONE BODY by ONE SPIRIT, no? And if any man be in Christ he is a new creature, right? So if ALL THINGS ARE NEW then what need is there for men to die, sleep in Sheol, and await “the resurrection of the dead” when “the dead” have already been resurrected/redeemed? Christ came to save us “from sin and death”, no? This applies to the living not corpses, doesn’t it?
You said: 'I’m not so sure Paul is saying that “that which is seen is meant to reveal to us that which is not seen”", and I have to wonder why you wouldn’t? What do you think he meant? What do you believe Rom 1:20 means when it says that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”? Do we not know or better understand what it means to be spiritually dead by our observation of what it means to physically dead? What about Israel’s captivity in Babylon, their wandering around in the dessert for 40 years, their entrance into the promised land, etc? What about “the law” and all those animal sacrifices, etc. Weren’t those things (all “seen”) given ‘as examples’ of spiritual truths that are “not seen” that are part of our spiritual journey as we seek to enter “into the promised land”?
And what about all of the miracle that Christ performed – healing the physically lame, blind, deaf and dead (at various stages of death, which also speaks to spiritual truths, to me)? If those “physical” things were so much more important than to be ‘typical’ of those things that are taking place within the spiritual realm then why are there so few, if any, healings of this sort in the body of Christ?
You don’t seem to be “big” on allegorical interpretations of the scriptures (though you do acknowledge that they exist) but these are the very things that make the scriptures come alive, to me; they are what convince me beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are divinely inspired. Christ spoke in parables, so why would it be unheard of to think that this is how spiritual truths are revealed and that it takes the spirit to open them up so that we can understand them? Even Paul understood that there was more to the story of Adam and Eve then just the story of the creation of one man and one woman and that the story of Sarah and Hagar has a much deeper meaning that what was just on the surface. Even the physical rest of the Sabbath has a spiritual application that has nothing to do with physically resting on the seventh day of the week, as does water baptism. And what about Jacob and Esau? Joseph? Even Noah or Job? All of these OT stories (and many more) have a much deeper spiritual (allegorical) meaning than just what is presented in “the letter”. Would you not agree?
You said that Adam did not cease to be a living soul after he sinned, that he was “as much a living soul after he sinned as he was before". But was he? Sure he was still alive physically, but he was “dead” in sin, wasn’t he? You are equating “a living soul” to “a living being” (vs a physically dead corpse) but I think that you are missing my point when I pointed out that a soul (nephesh) is A BREATHING CREATURE.
If a soul/nephesh is “a breathing creature”, is that “breathing creature” physically dead? No, right?
So why does it take the breathe of life (the spirit of God), to make a “breathing creature” (nephesh) a “living soul” (chay nephesh)? What is the “spiritual” significance of this? (There is AN ALLEGORY here!! )
Compare this with Psa 104:29-30 which says: “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth”.
Do you see this passage in relation to physical life/death? Seeing that God sends forth His Spirit and men are created and made alive, but when God takes away His Spirit these same men physically die and their bodies return to dust? What about the fact that we are “dust” (earthen vessels) and that we (breathing creatures / souls) are dead in sin (prisoners of ‘the body of this death’ whose throat is “an open sepulchre”) and we need to be redeemed (called out of) this “grave”? Is this not done by God sending forth His Spirit (the breath of life) and “renewing the face of the earth”, whereby we are “created” in His image and after His likeness?
It is not “the first man” (the natural man, “formed” out of the dust of the ground) that is “created” in the image and likeness of God. It is “the second man” (the spiritual man) that is “created in the image and likeness of God” – the one who has THE BREATH OF LIFE (THE SPIRIT OF GOD); the one who is “born again” by the spirit of God. Not born “of water” only, but WATER AND SPIRIT. Psa 102:18 even speaks of the generation which is “TO COME” and the people which “SHALL BE CREATED”. As I see it, God did not “create” man in His image and after His likeness, He is creatING man in His image and after His likeness – it is a process by which we are conformed into the image of Son. First the natural (the ‘figure’ of that which is to come, the image of the earthy, the first Adam), THEN THE SPIRITUAL (the last Adam, the image of the heavenly, the second man, CHRIST). But while the first Adam was made “a living soul” the Last Adam was made “a quickening spirit”. What do you make of “Christ in you”, or Christ being made “a quickening spirit”? Do you see that as just a metaphor?
You think that I may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, but what makes you just assume that the scenario I mentioned in my earlier post is the only other scenario that I am familiar with and have rejected? That was merely an example of some of the things that I have believed in the past and later rejected. I have no problem with rejecting those things and still be able to see how a single general resurrection could be supported by the scriptures IF I thought that the scriptures supported the notion of soul sleep (as I once through it did, but have also since rejected that ).
Will address the rest in a different post…. I may have to go back to just answering point by point with the quotes. It makes the posts longer (not like this one is so short) but it’s easier.
So you believe that “this corruptible” refers to corpses and the “this mortal” refers to the living?
I disagree. Paul is not talking about physical death/resurrection. The “stars” (celestial bodies) mentioned in 1 Cor 15 are no different than the “stars” mentioned in the book of revelation and those “stars” are “the angels of the churches” and “the angels of the churches” are men (who have been “born again, who have had Christ formed in them and been “delivered of the child” just as Paul was… who was received ‘as an angel of God’ called to preach the gospel in the kingdom of God, sent “to reap” (the reapers are the angels) that which Christ said was “white, already to harvest”.
I think you missed my point, but never mind. It’s not important.
How else do you demonstrate “the resurrection of the dead” in a visible way?
Yes, it was a typo.
In the natural sense it refers to physical death, to a corpse, a dead body in which there in no life, that cannot work, think, contemplating life, praising God or anything else. In the spiritual sense it refers simply to those who are dead in sin needing to be redeemed from “the body of this death” that is their “grave” who also “know nothing” can “do no work” and are “in the depth of hell”.
I think that some are more obvious that others and some are even made reference to in the NT, but not all.
I actually agree with a lot of what you have written (that I have read), particularly in that thread at Tweb which may make up the bulk of what it is I have had the chance to read so far (so maybe not quite enough to say that I agree with “ a lot” of what you say… I don’t know). But with regard to that, the problem that I have with it is that it seems to focus more on the physical than the spiritual, even though you do address both. For example, you go into a lot of detail about what happened in 70 AD and how it fulfills prophesy… and I would agree. However, to me, that isn’t the spiritual fulfillment. Those things (“seen” in 70AD) are a physical manifestation of spiritual realities that are taking place in the invisible kingdom of God (that is within).
All that to say that “to depart and be with the Lord” doesn’t actually mean “to depart and be with the Lord”?
Paul was torn between two options (1) to depart and be with the Lord or (2) to remain in the flesh.
You seem to want to add a third option and say that his options were (1) to die (2) to remain in the flesh (3) to depart and be with the Lord with option #3 being “far better” than the other two, but not an option that he could choose.
I’m not sure how you get that out of that passage, but maybe I am misunderstanding? I’m going to have to re-read what you wrote again, more carefully, and with the passages in front of me and I don’t have any more time tonight to do that.
With regard to Christ’s disciples, though, I agree that they could not go where he was going. But Christ had not yet been crucified and resurrected. The NC was not yet in effect and they had not yet been “born again”.
But Christ did “come again” to receive them us to himself, so that they could be where he is. He fulfilled His promise when He said “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you”. And he said IN THAT DAY you shall know that I am in the Father and He in me and I IN YOU (CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY).
We are “the many mansions” in the father’s house that Christ was going to prepare.
And it’s not about ascending or descending (as the kingdom of God is WITHIN) and NO MAN has ascended into heaven but He first descended… but it is not “men” who ascends and descends, but THE ANGELS OF GOD who ascend and descend UPON THE SON OF MAN.
I’ll take a nothing look at this tomorrow when I have more time and can look up the various passages.
I know what “ontology” is but, no, I do not have a degree in metaphysics or philosophy so perhaps my understanding of what it means or what you mean by it is somewhat flawed. So I still don’t know what you mean when you say that we are “in Christ” ontologically but then say that we are “not Christ” but only “like him” (though, like him “ontologically”). That just doesn’t make sense to me given my understanding of what it means to be one, ontologically (as opposed to, say, just functionally), with Christ.
Do you believe that Christ is one, ontologically, with the Father? If so, then does that mean, to you, that Christ is only “like” the Father, there being no actual “union” between the two?
You claim an “ontological” relationship exists between us and Christ and claim that I am looking at it as only a “figurative” relationship. Yet you (in my mind) seem to explain it as more a figurative relationship (saying we are only “like” him) than I do. As I have never claimed that our relationship to Christ is “only figurative”. But then you have already accused me several times of saying several things that I have not.
So while you might think that I am full of “spiritual gas”, you haven’t even demonstrated that you’ve understood even one thing that I have said. So I will leave it up to you whether or not you want to explain what you mean by “ontologically one” or not. But I’d appreciate it very much if you’d drop the attitude, as I don’t know what I have done (other than maybe disagree with you) to deserve it.
I’m sorry if I did misunderstand you. But I thought you said that the dead are invisibly resurrected at the time of their death.
If you don’t have a physical body, you’re dead. You are messing with the hope of the resurrection - actually destroying people’s hope for your concept of a vaporous non-resurrection. The assumption that a Christian’s hope in the resurrection is not ‘spiritual’ enough is just wrong. What is your motive here?
Paul didn’t put up with this nonsense. Why should we? I probably look like a butt-head for saying that - but sheesh, some things must be defended.
“They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” 2 tim
And perhaps you threw the baby out with the bathwater when you decided to reject the idea of any kind of “general resurrection” for mankind at a future time!
, and while at present I find those ideas which are distinctive to your theology to be far from compelling (as I’m fairly sure is how you see my own views as well!), I definitely don’t think that what you have to say is “without merit,” and I do apologize if I gave you that impression.
