I went back and read all of Phillipians and I just can’t see where it says what you are saying. I certainly agree with you that Paul knew that Christ would be magnified whether by his life or by his death, which is why Paul was not ashamed to preach the gospel with boldness – not fearing for his life. But Paul clearly says that he is torn between two things:
(1) to depart and be with the Lord or
(2) to remain in the flesh.
And the one he considered “far better” (for himself) was to depart and be with the Lord. But he knew that it was needful (to them) for him to remain in the flesh, so he was confident that he would.
I see not third option there. Nor can I imagine Paul even saying “to be with the Lord” if his departing did not involved actually being with the Lord. I also can’t image Paul being “torn” about anything if there was no option to be with the Lord available to him, especially if (as you say) his only ‘real’ options were to either remain in the flesh or die (and remain in a state of unconsciousness) and he (according to you) did not desire to die and, thereby, be “unclothed”. What was there to be “torn” over if that is the case? An option that he couldn’t choose anyway? Why even bring it up?
So, as far as Paul not wanting to die because he didn’t desire to be “unclothed” after his death, I think that you are misreading that passage as well. Perhaps that is because of how you see death and the resurrection of the dead and the day of the Lord and I can certainly sympathize having once been in the same position, but the whole point of 2 Cor 5:1-4 is to tell us that we know that “if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, WE HAVE a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”. Paul says that it is “in this” that we groan, not desiring to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon that mortality might be swallowed up of life. It’s not about dying, it’s about living. It’s about having been reconciled to God through Christ. It’s about having Christ formed in us (as that is “the hope of glory” and the mystery that was kept hid from ages and generation that has now been revealed unto the Gentiles)
We receive “the earnest of the spirit” when we first believe but we are “yet carnal” and must “go on unto perfection” (God willing). And what Paul waited for and wanted to see was Christ formed in them and for them to be delivered of the child that a man (even the sons of God) might be born into the world (just as was Paul’s own experience and one he went trough ‘again’ with them as they travailed in birth).
Paul goes on to say that if one died for all then were all were dead and because Christ died for all those who live should not live unto themselves but unto Him that died for them. He goes on to say: “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh” (not even Christ) for “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”.
Clearly, Paul is not talking about dying or even of Christ’s return at the end of time to gather all who remain. He’s talking about the fact that death has been swallowed up of life and all things are become new. We need to awake from sleep and arise from the dead for today is the day of salvation.
I do get that even to the Philippians Paul talks about “the day of Christ” as if it is yet future and something that we are to be striving for, something that he continued to strive for, but was it because he had not already attained unto the resurrection of the dead or because he simply “counted it not” (and tells us to walk by the same rule)?
Well, thanks for the rolling eyes, but that is not my method of interpretation at all. I have in no way indicated that I believe that we exist as disembodied spirits after we die while we wait for our bodies to be resurrected or for God to give us our spiritual body, which is what you seem to be inferring here (and what you say below).
Is that what you believe? That the only two choices we have are “soul sleep” or “disembodied spirits”?
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, making one blood of all nations, creating one new man in Christ Jesus. We have already been gathered together in Him, by one spirit, into one body. What or who is left to be gather?
Already addressed in my previous post. But I will add here that I recognize this “spin” to the passage because I used to spin it this way myself . Just like I used to make the point that Paul did not say “to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord” but “to be absent from the body AND to be present with the Lord”. That way I could account for the “gap” that I had to read into the verse because of my belief in soul sleep and how I understood the resurrection of the dead. But that argument eventually fell apart, at least it did for me.
I disagree, that is death from the perspective of the living - looking at the physically dead.
But if we compare Eccl 9:5 to Prov 9:13-18 we can see that even the living who are dead in sin “know nothing” and are “in the depths of hell/sheol”:
Pro 9:13-18 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, To call passengers who go right on their ways: Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.
I am aware of the concept; I used to make the same argument myself, just ask anyone who knew me a few years ago. In fact, I believe that it was Sonia who first pointed out to me what Paul said to the Philippians a few years ago when I still (very strongly) believed in soul sleep.
His natural body coming out of his tomb without ever seeing corruption?
He was going to the cross and he could not receive them unto himself until after was crucified and resurrected and had ascended to the Father.
Huh? Christ did not say he was going to prepare the many mansion; he said:
Joh 14:2 ** 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.**
Where have I ever said that Jesus Christ is not a man?
I disagree.
I don’t know what you mean by “person” but certainly one can exist without a body or there would be no God.
Did I deny that Christ’s tomb was empty or that he appeared in a physical body of flesh and bones, seen by many, and ate with and was touched by His disciples, etc? He also appeared in locked rooms, was not recognized by some of those who knew Him in the flesh and was received into a cloud. Is he now sitting in heaven (or on a cloud) in his body just patiently waiting for all of the rest of us to join him since he is the only man in heaven?
2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Death had been abolished for those in Christ who walk according to the spirit.
Christ has opened the graves, we just need to answer the call and come out of them. But I agree, this is the great hope of mankind, to KNOW the power of His resurrection. And you are right, not all KNOW it yet.
And I look forward to the day that I will hold my daughter again and kiss her feet (and cheeks). What makes you think I feel otherwise?
Exactly my point. One need to “go to heaven” to be WITH/IN CHRIST or to be RESURRECTED WITH HIM or to be SEATED WITH IN in heavenly places… HAVING PASSED from death unto life.
Where have I ever claimed that people are not distinct from each other? Or that I believe that being “one body” negates that distinction (especially when I believe that we are a part of the body now)?
You say it over and over again! You say it in this same post. You don’t believe that Christ has a body now, or that He hung His body in a closet while He waits to resurrect humanity. If He is bodiless - then He is dead…again or not a man at all!
But a man without a body is not a man. The person is gone. Ghosts are not men. The Holy Spirit is not a man. Rocks are not men. Don’t you understand Paul when he says that every living thing has it’s own body?
It’s as though you think a resurrected body is not a body - a real body.
The violence done to Christ was real - they killed Him. He was a real man - when He was separated from His body He was really dead. And He went to the place of the dead and it was filled with the dead and bodiless like Him. Death held Him for a while - the rest of the captives wait. You say you are ‘in Christ’ because you believe and I say you are ‘in Christ’ because you are a human being.
When hell/hades/sheol is emptied of the dead - it will be destroyed. There won’t be any more death. Until then, it remains.
So tell us that Christ is an eternal man and then tell us that He is bodiless and not a man at all. Which is it?
If I asked you, where is Christ’s body? How would you answer?
And another thing. (This might make for a great thread)
A resurrected body is just that - it comes from the same elements of the old body. A reconstruction. A re-erection. So it is physical and material. A resurrected body is not created out of nothing or created out of ‘spirit’ however one imagines such a vaporous non-existent thing being called ‘resurrected.’ So let’s not toss the word ‘resurrected’ around without acknowledging what it means.
It is the bodily re-united living person that can be referred to as a new creation.
Well I think you made valid points, AHF…and I’m certainly not one to cling to an interpretation of Scripture no matter how unreasonable it seems (at least, I try not to!). And having considered it further, I actually agree that it’s not the most compelling interpretation of Phil 1:23. In all honesty, I was never really “sold” on it, myself; the second view I proposed is actually the one I’ve held to since I first came to believe that death ends consciousness (I even suggested it in an earlier post, shortly after I joined this forum: “Them Which Are Asleep”). Sometimes I like to offer up interpretations that are relatively new to me (like this one, for instance) for the consideration of people with a more unbiased and “critical eye” to see how it stands up. So since it didn’t fly with you (nor with me), let’s stick with the second view that you were originally familar with back when you held a similar view as me. Even though you find it less than compelling in light of your “new” understanding of what happens after death, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable interpretation. For instance, pretend for a moment that you believe in “soul sleep” like you used to (as difficult as it may be!). Would Paul’s words not be true to your own experience? That is, would you not take comfort in the fact that, after “departing” from the land of the living, your next conscious experience after death would be “with Christ?” I know I do, and if that was indeed Paul’s understanding, it would make a lot of sense for him to say what he did in view of that fact.
It also seems consistent with the certainty Paul expressed of having a “building from God,” and his confidence that he wouldn’t be forever “unclothed” (which I understand to mean, “dead in the grave”). I’m not entirely sure what you think it means for Paul or anyone to be “unclothed,” however (although you indicated earlier that being “clothed” has something to do with being “covered” by Christ), so if you’d like to clarify, it would be appreciated!
But before Christ went to the cross he could have said the same thing as Paul - i.e., “I know that if the tent, which is my earthly home, is destroyed, I have a building from God, a house not made with hands…” (in fact, he said something very similar concerning his resurrection in John 2:19-22!). But how could Jesus or Paul or anyone say this? Because it is so certain that we are going to be raised from the dead by God. That which is certain to happen, or that which one is certain to receive, can be spoken of as being a present reality. It’s called speaking proleptically. And concerning Paul’s words that our “house not made with hands” is "in the heavens, NT scholar N.T. Wright suggests (correctly, IMO), “The new bodies, are ‘stored up in heaven’…[though that may only mean] that they are safe in the mind, plan, and intention of the creator God.”
What do you think Paul meant by his “tent” or “earthly home” and its being “destroyed?” And what do you think he meant by his “heavenly dwelling” that he expected to “put on” at some point after the “destruction” of his “earthly home?” Again, some clarification and elaboration on how you understand this passage would be much appreciated.
I should also add (as an aside; it’s not that important to the discussion) I don’t think the “day of the Lord” is future, unless by that you mean “the last day” of which Christ speaks in John’s Gospel (which I understand to refer to the last day of Christ’s reign, when he returns to raise the dead).
While I agree that the inner transformation and the maturity of the believer is Paul’s focus in other places, I don’t see it as being in view in 2Cor 5:1-9.
But Paul clearly is “talking about dying” here, AHF. Christ’s death for all was a literal death, was it not? So it seems reasonable to understand the expression “all died” (v. 14) to refer to literal death as well. Because all are certain to die (with the exception of those who will be alive when Christ returns!), it could be said that all have already died (even if one understands the “death” to refer to “spiritual death” it would have to mean this!). Paul then transitions to the topic of the “spiritual transformation” that results from believing the truth previously under consideration (i.e., that Christ died for us and rose again, thereby giving us the assurance that we, too, will be raised from the dead - 2Cor 4:14, etc.). It is our hope in this fact that brings about the inner change that Paul calls being a “new creation” in Christ.
Again, I don’t think the “day of Christ” is future to us; my understanding is that this “day” refers to 70 AD, when Jerusalem was overthrown and it was announced to the world that Christ had received the kingdom from the Ancient of Days and had begun to reign (see Dan 7:13-14). It was at this point that I believe the age of the Messianic reign began. The coming of Christ that I’m anticipating is that which I think is referred to in John 14:2-3; Acts 1:9-11; 3:19-21; 1 Cor 15:22-23; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 John 3:2. In contrast to Christ’s coming at the overthrow of Jerusalem, I believe Christ’s coming to raise the dead will be a personal coming; moreover, whereas his “judgment-coming” at the destruction of Jerusalem marked the beginning of his reign, I believe his personal coming to raise the dead and subject all people to himself will mark the end of his reign (see 1Cor 15:22-28).
The rolling eyes weren’t directed at you personally (plus he kinda smiles at the end, right? ). And as I’m sure you’re aware, the “interpretation” was meant as an exaggeration; I’m sorry if you found it in poor taste. But seriously, when the expression “those who have fallen sleep” in 1Cor 15 doesn’t mean “those who have physically died,” I don’t see how it would be much of a stretch to view Paul’s words in Phil 1:23 to mean something quite different from the more straight-forward interpretation you’re suggesting (which, being as literal and straight-forward as it is, seems a bit inconsistent with your interpretation of “death” passages elsewhere!).
No, I’m very much aware of other views, such as the pantelist (full preterist) view, as well as the view that we are given a “spiritual body” immediately after death. Many 19th century Universalists of whom I’m quite fond (such as Sylvanus Cobb, Abel Thomas and Thomas Whittemore) were proponents of the latter view; I simply don’t find the view very compelling, or consistent with the overall tenor of Scripture. But to their credit, these men did understand 2Cor 5 to be referring to the same post-mortem event spoken of by Paul in 1Cor 15; they simply saw no unconscious gap between our death and our being clothed with our new body, as I do (and as you used to!). And they also called it a “resurrection.” But you don’t seem to think of our post-mortem existence as being the result of a “resurrection,” or of the post-mortem body as being a “resurrection body” (at least, I can’t think of anything you’ve said that indicates this). So I think I was somewhat justified in assuming you believed we existed in a disembodied state after death.
Unbelievers have only be reconciled in a prospective or anticipatory sense, not in a realized sense (that’s why Paul could go on to implore unbelievers, “be reconciled to God!” immediately after saying that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; see also Col 1:20-21). They have not yet been “gathered” or “drawn to Christ.” The “new man” of which Paul speaks in Eph 2:15 refers to believing Jews and Gentiles, not unbelievers.
For me, it would only be a “spin” if it had previously been revealed somewhere in Scripture that death does not end (indefinitely) one’s conscious existence. But I don’t see any previous revelation in Scripture that indicates this to be the case (though I see much in Scripture - both in the OT and in the writings of Paul himself - that indicates it is NOT the case). And since I believe Paul’s words are perfectly consistent with the view that the dead are unconscious until the resurrection, I see no problem at all interpreting it in this way. But I am interested in how the “argument eventually fell apart” for you. Was it because you first became convinced that the dead are not unconscious? Maybe it is. However, in light of what you’ve previously disclosed, I kind of doubt it. For earlier you said the following:
So from this it would seem that your rejection of the idea that the dead are unconscious was more of an indirect consequence of your changing your views on what “the resurrection of the dead” means. In other words, for you the idea that there is not a “gap” in one’s existence after death seems to have followed from your change in opinion concerning the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and not because you first became convinced that the Bible teaches that the dead are in fact conscious. So I’d like to talk more about what changed your views concerning the resurrection of which Paul speaks in 1Cor 15.
So do you think “the dead” in view in Eccl 9:5 are simply foolish, and that this is what it means when we’re told “the dead know nothing?” Pehaps this is your view, but I doubt it (esp in view of v. 10). Also, the last verse is most likely not talking about “spiritual death.” Probably the author is simply speaking of the fate of a premature death that those who do not give heed to wisdom (but instead live foolishly) will almost inevitably face.
You have no evidence that it was Christ’s “natural body” that came out of the tomb. All the evidence points to the idea that Christ’s “natural body” was not merely reanimated (as was the case with Lazarus, for instance), but rather it was changed into something very different than what it was before (i.e., an imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body). A “natural” body is not immortal.
It is true that Christ’s natural body did not “see corruption”; however, this fact has nothing at all to do with the “kind” or “nature” of resurrection that Christ experienced. Rather, this fact merely has to do with how long Christ remained dead before he was raised. So it’s not a matter of “kind” but of “time.” The “kind” of resurrection that Christ experienced was a literal, physical change from a perishable body (which I believe would have decomposed had it not been “changed” by God within just a few days) to an immortal body.
According to my view, there is good reason to believe that some (perhaps many, judging by today’s statistics and the number of people alive in the world) will have died just prior to the resurrection of the dead, so it will be the case that they won’t “see corruption,” either. But again, this fact is completely irrelevant with regards to the “kind” of resurrection the dead experience; rather, it has to do with how long people may or may not remain dead before they are raised. And of course (according to Paul) some will never die at all. However, they will still undergo the same kind of “change” that Christ experienced in the tomb.
So when Christ said, “where I’m going you cannot come” he was simply talking about dying? Because I’m pretty sure they all died (and I’m fairly positive some of them were even crucified). Do you not think that when Christ said, “where I am going” he was talking about going to the Father? That’s my understanding, anyway.
First, I think the more accurate translation is, “In my Father’s house are many rooms” (as the ESV has it). Second, the “place” that Christ is to prepare for us appears to correspond to the “rooms” or “mansions” in view. But you seem to understand the “many mansions” (or “rooms”) to refer to us, and the “place” that Christ was going to prepare for us (the “many mansions/rooms,” according to your view) to refer to something else. Could you please clarify?
Aligning myself with Christine, who makes the feminine side of my being proud as she ties the men of EU in knots.
Well anyway, before I got stupid, I thought to add to the discussion by saying I believe the mansions are our resurrected beings that are existent now in another realm. We just have not had the full realization of this parallel world (Heaven on Earth) with it’s many mansions yet. As our resurrection is progressive, we should be realizing “Heaven on Earth” more fully with each day.
Christ is as the Father’s mansion/house with many rooms(mansions) in Him.
Don’t forget the mansion is within and the “within” is not confined to the painted clay we call a physical body. The physical body is not who we are but instead just dead weight we are made to carry around on earth.
The “feminine side of my being?” Are there any other sides of your being that you haven’t told us about?
I think John Bovee Dods (who at one point claimed to have been visited and instructed by “glorified spirits”) was one of the first Universalists to teach a “progressive resurrection.” What is it that leads you to believe that the resurrection is progressive?
I think you just made the Gnostic side of your being proud as well with those statements.
Most of the stuff you write goes straight over my head, so I wouldn’t exactly call your beliefs “simple!”
The “feminine side of my being?” Are there any other sides of your being that you haven’t told us about?
Indeed there is another side but I cannot divulge it, as I fear it might gum up RanRan’s idea of the valid pursuit of God
I think John Bovee Dods (who at one point claimed to have been visited and instructed by “glorified spirits”) was one of the first Universalists to teach a “progressive resurrection.” What is it that leads you to believe that the resurrection is progressive?
Aaron, our resurrection is as progressive as our crucifixion. We pick up the cross and in our dieing we are living by another means which is Resurrection Life, the very Life of a Risen Christ. We die a little each day and we are raised in the same proportion, for our dieing to self is Living unto Him … more so unto that Day when we shall realize Christ’s full stature in us.
I think you just made the Gnostic side of your being proud as well with those statements.
No, not Gnostic, because we come to see the value of that dead weight, which is as the great stepping stone into Theosis. We see the purpose of a corruptible body and in doing so we see it’‘s beauty. One of the deepest experiences we will have in God, is to love all of ourselves, by means of His Love. We actually see ourselves, spirit, body and soul through His eyes and we find it’'s true worth. The great weight becomes a step to reach Him by.
I hope you can understand that.
Most of the stuff you write goes straight over my head, so I wouldn’t exactly call your beliefs “simple!”
Aaron in all seriousness, the deeper I see into Christ, the more simple His truths become. They also tend toward One. Those two principles. I have enjoyed for a number of years and they are invaluable to me in measuring Truth.
Lastly, please note my friend, I would never purposely shoot over your head. I always try to aim for your heart.
Simple is incredible. It was shortly after my father died that I was grieving that suddenly and unexpectedly the profound reality of Christ’s resurrection hit my like a brick. I sensed, I think, exactly the same thing His friends and disciples experienced seeing Jesus, the Christ, ALIVE three days after seeing Him brutally beaten, crucified, stabbed with a spear to the heart, dead and buried and there He was, alive and eating and talking with them!
My God, ain’t that enough? We have to replace THAT with this spiritualized BS to replace the real miracle - the launching of the faith and hope of the world.
I have to ask you, John and Christine - if you had been there - would you still be spouting your stuff for THAT?
I would rather, as a Christian, be repeating and affirming THAT witness - than creating something new and different and claiming to be a sole witness to an innovation.
‘When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?’ That’s not a rhetorical question by Christ.
Repent of the BS while you can - because you are surely not advancing His kingdom while you do.
Yes, once you experience it, it is simply incredible and incredibly simple. It is a knowing that even escape the intellect.
“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:13
Horse hockey! This is not a battle of ‘experiences.’ It’s about the witness. We are only Christians because we believed the witness, not every jerk off with a ‘vision’.
I don’t want to ‘escape the intellect’ of the witness, I want to believe the intellect of the witness who attested to something quite impossible but saw and attested to and died for their testament. You ain’t got nothing better or anything to add.
Why the hell is so hard to realize time moves differently in different states Ran. What seems like a seventy years on earth can be as instant in Heaven. You have to have the working of the cross in people lives with patience and long suffering and God will get it done in life and in death. in what we think as an instant in death or the gulf between heaven and earth, for those experiencing the cross it it will take just long enough and no more. But believe me it will be a process of long suffering and patience, a **process **never forgotten! Why do so many want an easy way around the cross! After you have experinced the cross and learned to embrace it, you wouldn’t want any to be cheated of the experience. By God, pick up the cross, Pilgrim! Learn to love it!
What Christine and I share is readily understood by others on other UR forums. Nothing so damn innovative. Get out a little Ran. Get out amongst the simple commoners and away from the din of the Theologians and you might see, that which you label “innovation” is really old hat.
Yeah, if He can step through all the gum you been laying in His path!
Jeepers Ran! You got a little bit of my ire up with that last one.
‘Spiritualists’ are their own witness. OK? The superior position that you may take is that the ‘nonspiritual’ don’t see things your way. Fine. But who has joined you? I mean, really joined you in all points?
And if I join with the communion of saints, you’ll what? Call us blind idiots? Get with the program, dude, it’s lonely in left field, where you want to rewrite Christianity. Ego-centric pride - yeah, you’re special and due attention. Not. But you can talk about humility all the day long.
I’ve already given the example of “death”. There is physical death which involved a physically dead body (a corpse) and there is spiritual death which involves a living human being who is “dead” in sin being separated from God (who is our “life”). Other examples might be:
The physical Sabbath vs The spiritual Sabbath
Temples made of stone vs Temples made without hands
Water baptism vs Spiritual baptism
Most don’t seem to have a problem with these ‘types’. When it comes to the Sabbath they realize that it’s NOT about physically resting on the seventh day, but about entering into God’s rest (which we do only after being released from “captivity” and after much “wandering in the wilderness”, etc, as typified in Israel’s physical journey into ‘the promised land’). Many don’t have a problem with the fact that God does not dwell in earthly temples but in “us” and very few still believe that one must be "physically dunked in water” to be saved. But when it comes to “death”, we just can’t seem to let go of the physical (making death “the last enemy” in more way than one, I suppose; and maybe that’s why).
I’m not sure, exactly. I think it’s scattered throughout scripture - OT and NT. It’s just a matter of “rightly dividing” the word between the natural/temporal and the spiritual/eternal. When it comes to some things (like the few examples listed above) we don’t seem to have a problem separating the two and which is “the full truth” but we seem to have a huge problem doing that with “death”.
The temples, Priests, animal sacrifices (etc) were all “important” but not in and of themselves. They were “important” because of the spiritual things that they represented and revealed. The same is true of “death”. Were it not for the fact that “the body of this death” dies and is buried and is no longer seen or known among the living how would we know what (spiritual) “death” (being separated from the living/God), is?
God commanded Moses to build a temple after the pattern of that which was in heaven. What “temple” is that? God made “the heavens and the earth and the seas” (all seen). What do they represent? He also made the sun and the moon and stars (all seen). What do they represent (especially in relation to the “celestial bodies” of which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15 when it comes to “the resurrection of the dead”)?
Yes, I do.
I don’t think that he was trying to establish “a similarity”; he was trying to establish “the resurrection of the dead”, of which Christ’s physical resurrection both typifies and proves.
Yes!
I thought you said that you don’t believe that corpses will start popping out of graves at the resurrection of the dead? So just how “literal” or “similar” do you really think “the resurrection of the dead” is to Christ actual/physical/bodily resurrection? (Be fair! )
The natural body is not the spiritual body. The seed that is sown is not that which is reaped.
See above. I believe that you are putting too much emphasis on the physical when we are not even given a hint of what eternity will be like, except that we will be with the Lord and God will be all in all. Might that include a physical existence? Sure! But not even you believe that the bodies of all those who have died are going to start popping out of their graves when “the resurrection of the dead” takes place. So if our natural body is not required to be resurrected for ANYONE who has already died (even though CHRIST’S BODY was raised and HIS TOMB was empty) in order for “the dead” to be “resurrected” and be GIVEN “a spiritual body” then why do you have the two so tightly wound around each other that you think that “the resurrection of the dead” is dependent upon “soul sleep”?
Lots of things are “highly questionable” to lots of people. That doesn’t make them untrue. Even Peter spoke about the fact that Paul’s epistles were “hard to be understood” and something that the “unlearned” did wrest with, to their own destruction.
Do you believe that when Paul said “I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man” that he was addressing men and women after the flesh? (I believe that he was speaking allegorically. )
I don’t think I have ever claimed to be anywhere near “sure” of what you, personally, believe. What I presented earlier was what I, myself, was familiar with in relation to what “some” who believe in soul sleep do believe (from my own perspective when I held that belief). While I may have assumed that at least some of your beliefs would be the same, I never attributed any of them to you specifically (I don’t think), so I am sorry if you got that impression (or inadvertently did do that).
Not sure what you are saying? Are you referring to “he that liveth and believeth shall never die”? And saying that he doesn’t mean “never” in the sense that he will live beyond his natural death? If so, I disagree.
I agreed (if I am understanding you correctly).
I’d probably agree, but how do you see the resurrection of John 5:29? And how is it different from the resurrection Paul speaks of in Philippians?
I disagree. As I said in my previous post (I think) Paul did not say he had not yet attained unto it; he merely said: “I count it not”. Paul continued to strive for it, as though he had not already attained it. And he tells us to walk by the same rule… even whereunto we have “already attained”. Granted not all know “the power of His resurrection” (even though all have been gathered together “in Christ”) I believe that Paul certainly did. But there is a reason why Paul said “I count not myself to have already attained” (if we bear witness of ourselves our witness is not true).
I disagree for the reasons previously stated with regard to who “the angels of the churches” (the “stars” in His right hand) are. I believe that they are “men” in both Rev and 1 Cor.
The “angels” of the churches (who are also “the reapers”) are the “stars” in His right hand; they are the “bodies celestial” that make up “the heavens’. It’s about the natural (outward) man and the spiritual (inward) man. One is sewn (the natural) the other is reaped (the spiritual). This is not about a physical resurrection of physical bodies in physical graves (or unseen/hidden “in Hades”) being resurrected…except as it applies, spiritually, to those “in the earth” who are prisoners to “the body of this death”.
No one who is “physically dead" is “dead in sin”, are they? It is only the living who are “dead in sin”. But there was One who “overcame death” by condemning death “in the flesh”. Right?
Jesus Christ is God (The Word) “manifest in the flesh” and God (The Word) was no more “dead” when Christ descended “into His physical grave” (the abode of the dead, ie Sheol/Hades) than He was when “The Word” was “made flesh” and descended “into this world” (the abode of the dead, ie Sheol/Hades).
This which is seen is temporal and that which is not seen is eternal and we are not to be looking upon that which is seen, but upon that which is not seen, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. No? So what do all of those physical things point to? What do they reveal about that which is “not seen”?
No, I do not agree. Was Christ not lifted up on the cross? What do you think that it means that God was in Christ “creating one new man”? What does it mean that we have all been baptized by one spirit into “one body”? Why do you think that we are told not to forsake “the assembling of ourselves together” (episynagōgē) “as the manner of some is”?
Do you think that I believe that it takes place while men are physically dead?
Well, the dead can certainly bury the dead.
How does the meaning change with vs without the word “blood”? I simply quoted it as it is written, but don’t know why you don’t think that it has anything to do with the church since the church is His body and we are His body when the two preceding verses are talking about the fact that God doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands and neither is He worshipped with men’s hands and the two verse following say that He is not far from any one of us for “in Him” we live and move and have our being for we are His offspring.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but when did I call the literal body of Paul (or anyone) “the church”? It is the body of believers that make up “the church” (ie “the body of Christ”). And is it not true that “God, who is rich in mercy… even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ… and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”? So what does “a great cloud of witness” and “the angels of the churches” (who are “the stars in His right hand”) and the fact that Christ said that the field was “white already to harvest” and that He sent His disciple “to reap” and “the reapers are the angels” have to do with “the church” and “the resurrection of the dead”? A great deal, as far as I can tell. Aren’t clouds, angels, and stars “celestial bodies” and aren’t “the stars” mentioned specifically in 1 Cor 15 wherein the glory of the stars (ie “the angels of the church” –Paul having been received “as an angel of God, even Christ himself”) differ from one star to another?
It’s not a physical resurrection. No.
Not the way you see it, perhaps. But I believe that we have “put on” immortality and incorruption by being “clothed” with Christ, which is when mortality is swallowed up of life.
I agree. And I believe that is a direct result of “Christ in you”, but not only is Christ “in us” but we are “in Him”.
Physical death is not the enemy. The carnal mind is the enemy. And the Word being made flesh and coming into the world to be crucified and lay dead three days and three nights in the heart of the earth before being resurrected from the dead ‘typifies’ that which is happening “within” us through we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.
And if you didn’t believe in soul sleep would you still see it that way? When Paul is talking about the outward man (which is perishing) and the inward man (that is being renewed day by day) when he tells us that we not to be looking upon that which “is” seen (which is temporal) but on that which is “not” seen (which is eternal) and goes on to say that we know that if this earthly house WERE DISSOLVED that WE HAVE a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens? And that is it “in this” that we do groan, not desiring “to be unclothed” but to be “clothed up” with that house not made with hands? Would you believe that you have to “wait for” that body if Paul told you that you should know that if this earthly body were dissolved that you “have it”, if you didn’t already believe in soul sleep and didn’t have to reconcile it that way?
“Or anything else” is a rather broad statement, don’t you think? You don’t think that the fact that the “invisible things” of God are “clearly seen” and “understood” BY “the things that are made” has nothing to do with those things that are made/seen (temporal) revealing those things that are not seen (eternal) besides God’s “eternal power and divine nature”? What about the angels/stars/clouds (heavenly/celestial bodies) and the earth/sand/seas (earthy/terrestrial bodies)? These things that are “made” (seen/temporal) do not help us to see and understand certain spiritual truths that are “invisible” (not seen/eternal)?
It is Christ who has the keys of death and hell and the Word was made flesh that He might condemned sin in the flesh and destroy him who has the power of death, so I could say that same to you; that you are trying to hang onto the type (physical death) seeing it everywhere in the NT when the dead are no longer seen as just physical corpses of rotting flesh but as those who have “no life” in them because they partake not of His flesh and His blood - He being the resurrection and the life, and the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. The mystery that was kept hid from the ages and generations that is now revealed being Christ in you.
They may have authenticated Christ’s Messiahship, but you are not going to tell me that was their primary function and they do not reveal the truth that Christ came to heal the SPIRITUALLY lame, deaf, blind and dead (with “that” being His primary function – to redeem us from the wages of sin, death – which is most assuredly still happening today).
I didn’t say it was the “only” reason. But, either way, I think you’re missing a lot of beautiful stuff if you can’t see them on at least every other page!
The scriptures themselves tell us that “they” were given “as example to us”; that they ministered “not unto themselves but unto us”. So how does that make them “pretty unimportant” and that their “secondary” function - rather than their primary function (as far as that which is written about them)? What was their “primary” function then? Besides, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It is not only those who have lived since the advent of Christ who have walked in faith and entered into the Promised Land and the rest of God, which is the true Sabbath.
I think you are missing my point.
You are still looking at if from only a “physical life” perspective and missing my point, I think.
And “the breath of life” that was breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make him “a living soul” is ‘allegorical’ of God sending forth His spirit to quicken the dead and conform them into the image of His Son, in the day that they are “created in His image and after His likeness”.
First the natural, then the spiritual. Those things that are invisible are clearly seen and understood by those things that are made (seen).
And yet you claim that there is no allegorical meaning in the Genesis account above, wherein God breathes “the breath of life” into Adam/man to make him “a living soul” and God “sending forth His spirit” to quicken “the dead” and make them “alive”?
When are the truths of God ever “straight-forward” and “simple” to be understood? You can’t even see God sending forth His spirit to quicken the dead and give them life is seen allegorically in the Genesis account of God breathing the breath of life into Adam to make him a living soul, but I’m supposed to be ashamed of believing that this (and many others things) have a “spiritual application” (that shouldn’t be overlooked or just brushed aside because “the natural” application (that which “is seen”) is what I am supposed to be “looking upon”? What is more important? The type or the anti-type?
So you believe that Jesus Christ exist somewhere in a physical body all by himself?
I though you said that you don’t believe that physical death is the result/penalty for sin? If so, then how is physical death “the sin problem” that need to be resolved?
I disagree, but ok.
I believe that physical death is a type of spiritual death. And while men “die” (fall asleep) physically they are also “asleep” (“dead” in sin) “in Christ” in whom they have been “gathered together into one body”. One does not negate the other, but one (the natural; that which is seen) reveals the other (the spiritual; that which is not seen). And I believe that we are to be “rightly dividing the word of Truth” (and His words are spirit and they are life) by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” and that we are to be looking upon that which is “not seen”.
By letting the scriptures interpret themselves and comparing spiritual things with spiritual. We are very clearly told in Revelation who “the stars in His right hand” are (the angels of the churches). We are also told by Christ that “the reapers are the angels” and we know that Jesus send His disciples “to reap” (saying that “the field is white, already to harvest”). And we know that Paul was received “as an angel of God, even as Christ himself” and, going back to Revelation, who do we see flying “in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on (in) the earth”? Is it not “an angel”? And who is pouring out the wrath of God in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ? Is it not “the angels”? And who is it that is given the honor “to execute” judgment? Is it not the Saints?
I see the "sun” as Christ ( who is THE LIGHT of THE DAY)
I’m not as sure about the “moon” because I think it can represent several things and possibly all of them together, since I see them as related (the natural man, that which is born of a woman, of whom John the Baptist - who also is representative of “the prophets” - who was “the greatest”). For me, this needs more study and I haven’t had the time to delve into it further yet.
I see the “stars” as above (the spiritual man, the saints, the angels).
Because I believe that Adam (man) was always mortal and therefore always subject to physical death – which means that physical death has nothing to do with “sin” but is simply the result of man’s “mortality”. Therefore, the “death” that Adam (and all men) suffered due to sin is spiritual death and it is ‘this’ death from which we need to be redeemed in order to have “eternal life” (which is “to know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent”, which “few” find).
So if the point is for us to know God and Jesus Christ so that we can have eternal life (something that applies to those who are physically alive) then I can see the point in God making men “mortal” - so that men know what “death” is. And I can see why Christ had to die physically and be resurrected physically when physical death is not the penalty for sin. First, because His blood was required; second, so that we would know what “the resurrection of the dead” is.
But I don’t see the point of “death” existing beyond the point of physical death when physical death is not the penalty for sin and it is those who are dead in sin (who are physically alive) who need to be “resurrected from the dead” so that they can “have life and have it more abundantly” (by being redeemed from sin and death).
These posts are getting longer and longer and taking longer and longer to address (and editing to add that, as I post this I see that there are more posts, at least one of which is probably as long still to address) … but we are up to 12 pages in length now. And I don’t know if I can keep going at this rate. I just don’t have the time to spend hours on every post. Perhaps we can narrow this down? Or perhaps we are simply at an impasse and just need to agree to disagree, I don’t know.
. Just like I used to make the point that Paul did not say “to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord” but “to be absent from the body AND to be present with the Lord”. That way I could account for the “gap” that I had to read into the verse because of my belief in soul sleep and how I understood the resurrection of the dead. But that argument eventually fell apart, at least it did for me.
And having considered it further, I actually agree that it’s not the most compelling interpretation of Phil 1:23. In all honesty, I was never really “sold” on it, myself; the second view I proposed is actually the one I’ve held to since I first came to believe that death ends consciousness (I even suggested it in an earlier post, shortly after I joined this forum: 
