Do you believe in Soul Sleep?

[Aaron]

Hi Justin,

You wrote:

Anyway, if it were, then Jesus' argument that they are still alive in at least one respect would go a LONG WAY toward making an argument for the resurrection. For it would imply that God was both God of the Living and that He was preparing them for a resurrection. It makes little sense to me that somebody would go out of existence only to be "resurrected" at a future date. Given that the word "resurrection" comes from a Greek word "anastasis" which means to "stand up" this seems to me to imply that there is somebody in existence to stand up in the first place. This would utterly annihilate their argument, imho.

Well, first, I don't think arguing that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were "alive" in a disembodied state would "go a long way toward making an argument for the resurrection." For if I'm not mistaken, one of the most widely-known and prominently-held views in that day among the Gentiles and Hellenized Jews was Plato's belief in the "immortality of the soul." According to Plato, there was no need for a resurrection since those who died weren't really dead. Their bodies were "dead," but the persons themselves (i.e., their immortal soul) did not and could not die. According to this view, the "immortal soul" was thought to be the real person, and the body was considered to be a clog or hindrance - a "prison house" for the soul. And if a person's soul is in fact the actual person himself (i.e., where the locus of personal identity and consciousness is found), and the soul cannot die but is immortal, then the person is not in need of a resurrection (i.e., a restoration to a living existence), for a resurrection is only for those who are considered "dead." According to Plato's view, being re-embodied would've actually been considered undesirable and unnecessary. So I would suggest that if the Sadducees had understood Jesus to be saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could be considered "alive" apart from their being raised from the dead, they would've understood him to be affirming a more-or-less Platonistic view of human nature, and would've thus concluded that Jesus saw no need for a bodily resurrection. So I don't think arguing that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were "alive" in a disembodied state would've been considered a very compelling argument in favour of the resurrection, since there was such a well-known resurrection alternative in that day that would've probably had much stronger appeal to those who already had reservations concerning the doctrine of the resurrection. But since Jesus introduces his quote from Exodus 3:6 with, "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush," I doubt the Sadducees would've understood Jesus to be talking about anything but embodied life when he spoke of God as being the God of the living rather than the dead. Which leads me to my second point:

The "life" to which Christ is referring in his response to the Sadducees is, I believe, meant to be understood as the opposite of the "death" in view, and the "death" is clearly that state which places a person in need of a resurrection. In other words, the "death" that Christ has in view is the cessation of bodily existence. Thus, the "life" should best be understood as the restoration of bodily existence. In Luke's account of Jesus' response to the Sadducees we read,

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."

So what category of persons is God not said to be the God of? Answer: "The dead." And who are they? Answer: Those whose physical, bodily existence has ceased, and who are thus in need of a resurrection so that they "cannot die anymore." Thus, the "living" are those who are not in need of being restored to physical, bodily existence. So in what sense do "all live to God?" Answer: In anticipation and view of the resurrection of the dead, all live to God. That is, because the resurrection is so certain to take place, God views those who have died and all who are going to die as if they have already been restored to physical, bodily existence - which is why God was able to say to Moses, "I am (present tense) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." While these three men were dead at the time, God spoke as if they had already been restored to life because he knew they would be.

Partnering this up with all the references to some form of consciousness after death which you would have to make (rather complicated, I think) arguments for being pure metaphors, and you have a task on your hands. I know that you already do that, but I haven't been keeping up, lol. I just don't think it's tenable either logically or biblically, and I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind holding to the viewpoint. Perhaps you could give me an explanation for why it makes sense to you personally and makes for a coherent worldview? That might be more helpful for me to better see where you're coming from.

I think the general tenor of Scripture supports my view, and see "all the references to some form of consciousness after death" (which I think are actually less numerous than you may think) in a similar way as Universalists view the texts that many believe refer to and support ECT. As for the reasoning behind holding to my viewpoint, I believe it is most consistent with my observation and experience, and with what is revealed in the Bible. I try not to start with what I'd prefer to be true and then see if Scripture supports it. Rather, I start with what my own observation and experience teaches me, and then look to Scripture to see if it confirms or challenges what I would believe apart from a divine revelation. And in the case of the dead being conscious, I've found that Scripture confirms rather than challenges what my observation and experience teaches me.

[stellar renegade]

Okay, I'll come back and read this later when I have time, but for now I wanted to make Jesus' argument clear:

God said, "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Jesus' point was that because of the present tense of that statement, God was right THEN God of those three because He was God of the living and thus they were alive THEN. There was absolutely nothing in that statement about Him being their God that references anything remotely close to a future resurrection event. It would've made no sense to the Sadducees to say, "God said He was their God THEN at that moment because He is the God of the Living, even though they don't exist now and didn't exist then but will someday."

I think this is a huge flaw in our modern day abstract, conceptualized logic. We don't often see arguments like that, but it should be clear from the text.

[sparrow]

I think we're kind of dead now. (hmm. how can you be "kind of" dead? lol)
Imagine dying and you realize that dying is really just being born into REAL life.
Maybe we who are alive are actually the dead ones, not the ones who have passed on...

[Aaron]

Hi Lefein,

Hope you're feeling better!

I wrote:
Along with being "transcendent," God is also fundamentally an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being who (unlike his mortal image-bearers) "alone has immortality," has no body (let alone a mortal one as man presently does) and "cannot lie." And yet, without sharing these divine attributes, man is still God's offspring and image-bearer, right? Why then must a transcendency over space/matter/time be an attribute of God's offspring/image-bearers? Why is this divine attribute considered so essential to you in regards to our being God's image-bearers and offspring, as opposed to the ones listed above? Why should I or anyone else share your opinion that, in order for man to be considered God's image bearer and offspring, he must be transcendent over space/matter/time?

You wrote:
Why should I step down from my opinion? Why should I go from believing I am more than the body, to being my body?

Well the only reason that I think anyone should step down from their opinion is if they find their opinion to be in conflict with the way things really are. I've provided just a few reasons and arguments for why I think your opinion on the subject of man's nature and post-mortem state is erroneous. If you failed to find my reasons compelling or my arguments sound (and it's more than evident to me that you have!), then I think you should by all means retain your opinion. But just keep in mind that a preference or deep desire for your opinions to be correct does not make them so. And of course this goes both ways; it just seems that your desire for your views to be correct and mine wrong is a good deal more intense than my desire for your views to be wrong and mine correct. It is you, after all, who so strongly feels his opponent's view to be utterly repugnant, calling it "the most hideous thing to come out of theology since Eternal Damnation" and saying "I hate your view" (etc.). Such strong words betray a strong desire for your views to be correct and mine wrong, and it's possible for such a strong desire to distort one's perception of the facts, and to lead one to ignore both the weaknesses in one's own position and the strengths in another's.

As for your repeated assertion that, according to my view, you are your body, this simply isn't true. According to my view (which is known as the "constitution view"), you are constituted by your body, but you are not your body. Subtle difference, I know. But the difference matters more than I think you realize. On a smaller and less significant scale, it would be like saying the Statue of Liberty is just a bunch of copper and steel. But only a fool would make such a statement. The Statue of Liberty is constituted by copper and steel, but it is so much more than a big lump of elements and alloys. Or consider the Bible. The Bible is constituted by paper and ink and binding (etc.), but as you know it is so much more than paper and ink and binding. Scripture is said to be "inspired," and the words on the pages of Scripture reveal the very mind, heart and plan of God. Similarly, while you are constituted by your physical body (which is itself constituted by the elements from which it was created by God), you are more than your body, and you cannot be strictly identified with it. Just as the Statue of Liberty and the Bible "transcend" the matter by which they are constituted, so you, as a human person bearing God's image, transcend the matter by which you are constituted. In fact, I believe you transcend the matter by which you are constituted to a much greater degree than either the Statue of Liberty or the Bible transcends the matter by which they are constituted. The matter by which you are constituted has been so modified and organized by God as to make you not only an animate being (a "living soul") but a being who bears God's image and shares his likeness. According to my view, you are a human person - a unique self with a first-person perspective, rational self-awareness and the capacity to feel and think and love. It's true that I believe you and I are "dependent" on our physical body for our consciousness and personal identity, but I think that's true in the same sense that you think we are "dependent" on our immortal soul for our consciousness and personal identity.

For a good critique of the "substance dualism" view of human nature (which you've been defending) and a solid (I think) defence of the "constitution view" to which I hold, I highly recommend the book Rethinking Human Nature by Kevin J. Corcoran. There is actually an image of this book on the forum (viewforum.php?f=20), although I doubt the image is there because the book is endorsed by the forum (although I think it should be! ).

Aaron:
But by "fundamental existential transcendency" don't you mean an existence like God's in which it is impossible to cease to be "existentially alive?" That is, doesn't "transcendency" for you pretty much entail that a person cannot cease to be existentially alive? And if so, then of course a cessation of that fundamental existential transcendeny would be an example of "lessening that transcendency." But this sounds like circular reasoning. To assume that man possesses this "fundamental existential transcendency" (i.e., an existence like God's in which it is impossible to cease to be existentially alive) and then criticize my view for "lessening" it is, I think, to beg the question. You must prove that man even possesses this "fundamental existential transcendency" (as you understand it) before you can criticize my view for "lessening" it. According to my view, man was not created by God with a "transcendency" over space/matter/time that entails his continued conscious existence after physical death, so for his conscious existence to cease with physical death would not be an example of "lessening" such "transcendency."

Lefein:
I criticise your view because I find it to be the most hideous thing to come out of theology since Eternal Damnation.

Alright...moving on then.

Aaron:
But Lefein, you don't even think this "Life" (to which you've ascribed your own theological/philosophical meaning without really explaining why you understand it the way you do) embraces every possible kind of life that man was created by God to experience and enjoy. It can't mean physical, embodied life - i.e., the kind of life with which we were brought into existence, and which will be permanently restored to us at the resurrection of the dead (when "death is swallowed up in victory") - because this life temporarily ceases at physical death. But again, it is this kind of life (physical, embodied life) that God created man to experience and enjoy, both during this present existence and for all time after the resurrection. So couldn't someone object to your definition of "Life" and assert, "If you don't physically exist in an embodied state, you aren't physically alive in an embodied state. And if you aren't physically alive in an embodied state, your aren't in Life." But of course, you said the "life" that believers receive by their spiritual union with Christ will not and cannot cease, for if you thought it could and would cease (even temporarily), your position would be overturned. And this seems to be the only reason you do not include physical, embodied life in the definition of "Life" above. But we presently exist as physical, embodied beings. That is, our "existential life" is presently tied to our having a physical, embodied existence. So why shouldn't this kind of life (physical, embodied life) be embraced by the "Life" that believers receive and enter into by faith in Christ? Why "existential life" in a mere disembodied state and not "existential life" in a physical, embodied state (which God clearly considers a superior state for man, and more conducive to our present and future happiness)?

Of course, I don't think this is the kind of "life" that Jesus was talking about when he spoke of that which people can receive and enter into by faith in him. But I see just as much reason to believe he was talking about this kind of "life" as to believe he was talking about "eternal existential life" after death in a disembodied state of existence. Both views are, I believe, equally mistaken.

Lefein:
It still dwindles down to the point.

We're "our body" or "our body is just a part of us".

If our life is that we are our bodies, I find that view to be beastial at best. I'll tell that to God to his face, and I have.

Again, I encourage you to check out the book if possible. According to the Constitution View, a human person is constituted by a physical body, but he is not identical to his body.

Aaron:
But why do you think it's the "higher, brighter, better, superior, more positive interpretation?" What are your reasons for believing this other than your own intuition or presuppositions? Why should I or anyone else agree with you that your interpretation of John 5:24 is "higher, brighter, better, superior and more positive" than my own? Catholics have no doubt traditionally thought it the "higher, brighter, better, superior and more positive" interpretation to understand Jesus' words in Matt 26:26 or John 6:53-56 literally. I'm sure their interpretation of verses like these creates for them a kind of awe and wonder and mystique that a more figurative interpretation (such as that held by most Protestants) cannot provide. But unless you affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation, you would probably disagree that their interpretation is "higher, brighter, better, superior and more positive" than yours.

Someone could argue that, since physical, embodied life is clearly a superior state for man (for it was not only the state in which we were brought into existence by God, but it is the state in which we will permanently exist after the resurrection) then the "higher, brighter, better, superior, more positive interpretation" of John 5:24 is that the "life" into which believers pass by faith is a "physical, embodied existential life" that will never cease. And just as you would disagree that Jesus meant "physical embodied existential life" in this verse, so I just as strongly deny that he meant both this and "non-physical, disembodied existential life," and I think my reasons for rejecting the former interpretation are just as valid for rejecting the latter interpretation.

Lefein:
"Just my body" or "More than my body"

The latter is by default better.

What's ironic is that later on in your response you criticize me for "oversimplifying things." But I would argue that the majority of your responses to me in this discussion have been an example of you doing just that.

Aaron:
Actually, I was thinking just the opposite: if the above is true (and your only argument to the contrary has been the agnostic appeal, "I don't know what happens to those who die sinners") then it is your position that cannot be true under a paradigm that aligns with Universalism. For you, the only people about whom you have any kind of certainty are those who die as believers in Christ. Concerning those who don't, you're just not sure; you can "only speculate." For a believer in UR to have to "speculate" on the post-mortem fates of billions of people is, to me, a sad and contradictory position. What's more, this agnosticism is, I believe, inconsistent with your position that it is our spiritual union with Christ that secures our "eternal existential life" after death. If you are to be consistent, I believe your view provides little to no hope for those who are "dead in sin" and "alienated from the life of God" when they physically die. As you said, "If you aren't alive, you aren't in Life." Well if a person is "dead in sin" and "alienated from the life of God" then how, pray, can it be said that they are, in any real or meaningful sense, "in Life?" Since they went through this physical, embodied existence and then died in a state of separation from the source of their "eternal existential life," I don't see why they wouldn't just pass out of existence completely. For you (at least, according to some of the statements you've made), it is our being in spiritual union with Christ by faith that secures our having "eternal existential life." And if those who die in unbelief die without having "eternal existential life," and faith in Christ was the only means by which they could've gained it, then their post-mortem situation is pretty bleak to say the least. So even though you claim to be a Universalist, your position is, I believe, even less hopeful than that of the "hopeful universalist" who thinks that man's "free will" may possibly prevent God from saving everyone he wants to save. At least a person who always has freedom to choose will always have the opportunity to choose God. But a person who ceases to exist has lost all opportunity to be saved if their not ceasing to exist depended on their becoming spiritually united to Christ by faith before they physically died.

But according to my view, everyone who physically dies - whether they were "dead in sin" while physically alive or "alive together with Christ" in a spiritual sense - will be raised by Christ to an imperishable, glorious, powerful existence and become part of the "all in all" that God is destined to become. According to my view, we can be sure that, while everyone (except the last generation alive on the earth) will experience "existential death," this state is only temporary and will end at the resurrection when all who die in Adam are made alive in Christ to "bear the image of the man of heaven." According to my view, this blessing can neither be gained by faith in Christ nor forfeited by unbelief.

Lefein:
You're trying to oversimplify the matter.

How so?

Aaron
You seem to be confounding the existential life of human beings that we have by virtue of our creation (and, I would say, being physically alive) with that spiritual blessing that is often referred to as "life" in Scripture, and which is conditioned on faith in Christ. The former is only related to the latter in the sense that the latter cannot be enjoyed except one already possess the former (i.e., those who are not existentially alive cannot enter into and enjoy the "life" that is conditioned on faith in Christ). But of course one can be existentially alive and still be "dead in sin" and "alienated from the life of God" because being dead in sin and alienated from the life of God (in the sense of which Paul speaks in Ephesians) has nothing directly to do with being existentially alive except in the sense already mentioned. The "life" that comes by faith in Christ and the "death" that is the opposite of this life refers to a particular moral or ethical state in which a person exists, and has to do with the disposition of their mind and condition of their heart.

If, when Paul spoke of the "life of God" in Ephesians 4:18, he was referring to God's being existentially alive rather than non-existent, then those who are "alienated from the life of God" would be non-existent. That is, the moment they became alienated from the life of God and "dead in sin" they would simply cease to exist. But this is not the kind of "life" that Paul is referring to. He's talking about the moral or ethical state in which God exists - i.e., the disposition of his mind - which manifests itself in his benevolent actions. That is, the "life of God" of which Paul speaks here is an ethical state in which one's decisions and actions are governed by love. It is a mind set (i.e., what Paul calls "setting the mind on the Spirit"). To be "alienated from the life of God" has nothing to do with the existential life that one possesses by virtue of having been brought into existence as a "living soul," but rather with the disposition of one's mind (which, for human beings, is I believe dependent on their having a functioning brain). Notice how, in the context, Paul writes of those who are alienated from the life of God as walking "in the futility of their minds," as being "darkened in understanding," and as having "ignorance in them" which is due to their "hardness of heart." Neither this kind of "death" nor its opposite state of "life" has anything to do with whether or not a person is or will be conscious after death.

Lefein:
It still dwindles down to the point. Just my body, or more than my body.

Well I appreciate you at least taking the time read what I wrote, even if you still think I was wasting my time typing up my response because it all just "dwindles down" to us either being "just our body, or more than our body." I disagree, and think you're oversimplifying things.

Aaron:
I would say that the "fate of those who die bearing God's image should not be permanent existential death," but nowhere is it promised in Scripture that those who die in Christ will have a different existential fate than those who die apart from Christ. The state of those who die in faith and unbelief is the same, both before the resurrection (Eccl 3:18-21; 9:2-10) and after the resurrection (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18).

Lefein:
You've ignored much of what I presented.

Are you serious? I've tried to respond to almost everything you've presented me.

Aaron
I don't see any indication in Scripture that any human being (except Jesus himself) has or will be freed from Hades (Sheol) until the future resurrection of the dead.

And what "departed sinner's soul" are you talking about? Their "immortal soul?" If a "departed sinner" is or has an "immortal soul," then their existential life never ceased nor will cease, right? That is, in spite of the fact that they were not spiritually united to Christ through faith when they died, their existential life will never cease, right?

Lefein:
I suppose Christ lied when he said Hades would not prevail against the Church, that He is the Life and the Resurrection, and that we are in him, and are his body?

I am a part of Christ, I am in Christ, why should I face the very thing Christ defeated?

How does what I say above make Christ a liar? When Christ said that the "gates of Hades" would not prevail against the Church, was he saying that Christians wouldn't physically die? Because that's how a person enters Sheol/Hades. And the only way to exit Sheol/Hades is to cease being physically dead, because physically dying is how you enter Sheol/Hades. When Christ said that the "gates of Hades" would not prevail against the Church, I believe he was simply saying that his Church would not ultimate die out over time and vanish from the face of the earth as a result of the violent opposition that would inevitably be coming against it.

Aaron:
Your caricature of my view doesn't really answer my questions. I don't believe we merely "look like" God like a babydoll looks like a human child. I believe we are like God in our being rational, self-aware beings who have an innate capacity to know good and evil, love and exercise dominion over lower forms of life. So again, I must ask: Why, Lefein, do you think that the Human Being must be "transcendent of the three dimensional material world" in order to bear God's image (and be his offspring), and not, say, omnipresent, omniscient or purely "spiritual" without a physical body? Why this and not something else that defines God's existence?

Lefein:
Because I don't view things as so severely black and white as you. Humans by default are finite, but that finity does not necessitate lack of transcendency. Transcendency is a directly reflectable aspect of God in the human being. I see no reason why they shouldn't be transcendent.

Your repeated assertion that this discussion can be narrowed down to "just my body, or more than my body" sounds pretty black and white to me.

It's true that finity does not "necessitate lack of transcendency," but this doesn't explain why you think human beings must be transcendent in order to bear God's image. To say, "I see no reason why they shouldn't be transcendent" doesn't explain why, either. One could respond by saying, "Well I see no reason why man shouldn't be omniscient or omnipotent, or exist in a wholly 'spiritual,' non-embodied state." But this wouldn't explain why human beings must be omniscient or omnipotent or exist in a non-embodied state to bear God's image.

Aaron:
But why do you think man must be transcendent in the sense that you think he is in order to bear God's image and be his offspring?

Lefein:
Because otherwise, Man is just a machine. A really emotional machine.

According to my view, man is constituted by a "machine" (i.e., his human body), but he isn't "just a machine." The "machine" by which he is constituted makes it possible for him to think and reason and feel and love, but the machine isn't thinking and reasoning and feeling and loving; the human person is.

Aaron:
But why do you think that man's ability to feel and think and love and be self-aware requires that he possess a "transcendent immortal soul?" Assuming this is your "studied opinion" rather than mere intuition or an assumption, how did you come to find this out?

Lefein:
Same as above, he's just a machine if not.

But previously you said you didn't think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love. So if it's possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an immortal soul, then man doesn't require an immortal soul to do this. Correct?

Lefein:
I read, and I thought.

Did you use your brain to do the above?

Aaron:
But why must a transcendency over space-matter/time be the way in which man reflects "God's fundamental being?" Why do you think this to be the case?

Lefein:
Machine.

How does that answer my question? Thinking rationally, being self-aware, loving and having dominion over lower forms of life also "reflects God's fundamental being," does it not? And if man can do these things without an "immortal soul" that transcends space/matter/time, then man can reflect God's fundamental being without an "immortal soul" that transcends space/matter/time.

Aaron:
It seems reasonable to me that man could, theoretically at least, have been created with such attributes as omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence (in the sense of having the power to do whatever he wants, even if what he wants is fully consistent with God's will) immortality in the highest sense (i.e., as God possesses), bodiless existence and an inability to lie, and that man could possess all of these attributes without being "omniessential" as God is.

Also, do you think that all of man is fully transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent, or do you think that only part of man is fully transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent? Or do you think that part of man is only partly transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent?

Lefein:
There can be only one God.

I think that the Man is the thing transcendent. His body is just a part of him. You're not understanding my position.
For God, it is his Person which is transcendent, his beinghood, his individuality.

If I thought I understood your position as well as you did, I wouldn't have asked the question. The reason I asked the question is so you could clarify. You said "the Man is the thing transcendent" but then say "his body is just a part of him." So if the body is a "part" of man, then wouldn't it follow that it is the other "part" of man that is transcendent? IOW, man is only partly transcendent. If he was fully transcendent, then every part of him would be transcendent. So do you think the part of man that is transcendent is transcendent in the same sense that you think God is transcendent?

Aaron:
How does your translation of these verses demonstrate that the "life" of which Christ speaks here has anything to do with a continued conscious existence after physical death in a disembodied state? And if this is what Christ is talking about, wouldn't it follow that those who don't live and believe in him will die "for the Age" and thus won't have a continued conscious existence after physical death in a disembodied state?

Lefein:
I can't make it any more obvious than I already have.

I must be missing the obvious then, because I seriously don't see how your translation makes it any more apparent that the "life" of which Christ speaks in this verse has anything to do with a continued conscious existence after physical death in a disembodied state. That is what you were trying to demonstrate with your translation, right?

Aaron:
According to my view, man's identity "expands beyond matter" because the organized matter by which man is constituted is organized in such a way as to bring forth that which makes man in the image/likeness of God (e.g., personhood, and a capacity to love and to exercise dominion over lower forms of life).

Practically, it doesn't extend beyond matter. If it did the human being wouldn't require it for existence.

Do you think the Bible in any way "transcends" the matter by which it is constituted? Surely you don't see the Bible as just a book, let alone just a collection of atoms.

Aaron:
Why must man share some kind of "tangible substance" with God, or be transcendent in the sense that you think God is transcendent, in order to reflect the very being of God?

Again, I believe man bears God's image and shares his likeness because of what he is (a rational, moral, self-aware being) and because of what he has the inherent capacity to do (e.g., love and have dominion over lower forms of life). Why do you think this is in insufficient for man to bear God's image in the way that God created man to bear his image?

Lefein:
I think that if man is just a machine it is exceedingly insufficient, nigh insulting, to be considered the image of God. God is not a machine, why should his children be?

God is not embodied or partly mortal or limited in knowledge or limited in power or able to lie, so why should his children be?

Aaron:
I believe Scripture uses the terms "death" and "life" in different senses, and with different meanings. In its most literal sense I believe "death" refers to what happens when a person's body stops functioning completely, and entails "existential death" (since I believe a human person is constituted by their physical body). But "death" doesn't always refer to physical/existential death. You seem to have lumped every form of "death" into "Death" (with a capital "D") and then understand each kind of "death" (lower case) as a particular degree of "Death", with "existential death" being the lowest degree. Is that correct, or at least close to what you believe?

As for Hades not implying existential death, in Eccl 9:10 (LXX), the Greek equivalent used for "Sheol" is "Hades." In other words, there is "no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Hades, to which you are going." Any why not? Answer: Because "the dead [i.e., those in Sheol/Hades] know nothing." Why don't they know anything? Answer: Because their brain has stopped functioning. There's no brain activity going on in the grave. Those in Sheol/Hades have begun to return (or have already returned) to the elements from which they were made. Christ is the only human being who was given the divine promise that he would not see corruption in Sheol/Hades.

Lefein:
The poetry of a depressed king crying out to God to fix a situation is usually not the best starting point for making an exhaustive detailed picture of the afterlife.

Well it's a good thing I don't use Ecclesiastes as my starting point for making an exhaustive detailed picture of the afterlife. So do you understand Eccl 3:14, 3:17 and 12:7 (for example) to be true statements about reality in the same sense that you understand Eccl 9:5 and 10 to be true statements about reality?

As for Christ, am I not in him? Am I not part of his body? Or are all Christians just pretending?

I'm not sure what your point is here.

I don't see how man and animal having immortal souls ruins the idea of Man being the image of God.

If both man and animal have immortal souls, what then is it that you think distinguishes man from the animals?

[Aaron]

Justin wrote:

Okay, I'll come back and read this later when I have time, but for now I wanted to make Jesus' argument clear:

God said, "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Jesus' point was that because of the present tense of that statement, God was right THEN God of those three because He was God of the living and thus they were alive THEN. There was absolutely nothing in that statement about Him being their God that references anything remotely close to a future resurrection event. It would've made no sense to the Sadducees to say, "God said He was their God THEN at that moment because He is the God of the Living, even though they don't exist now and didn't exist then but will someday."

I think this is a huge flaw in our modern day abstract, conceptualized logic. We don't often see arguments like that, but it should be clear from the text.

I think you're begging the question a bit here, Justin. Your understanding of Jesus' argument seems to presuppose that there is no possible sense in which God could consider himself the God of those who are presently dead while also being "God of the living" rather than "God of the dead." But this presupposition is, I believe, erroneous. God sometimes speaks of things which are not yet present realities as if they were because it is so certain that they are going to take place by his sovereign power. For example, in Romans 4:16-18 (NKJV) we read,

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”

Even before the birth of the promised child Isaac, God told Abraham, "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:5). Was Abraham "the father of a multitude of nations" at the time God spoke to Abraham? No; God was speaking in view of the fact that he was going to fulfill this promise made to Abraham, and that Abraham would, in fact, become the father of a multitude of nations.

Similarly, I believe that when God spoke of himself as the God of three men who were dead rather than alive, he was speaking in view of the fact that he was ultimately going to restore them to a living existence at a future time (and I believe Jesus recognized this fact). IOW, just as it was certain that Abraham would become "the father of a multitude of nations" (even though he was not yet the father of a multitude of nations), so it was certain that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would live again. Because God knew that he was going to restore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to a living existence and that they would not remain dead forever, God was able to refer to himself as their God in the present tense without contradicting the fact that "He is not God of the dead but of the living."

[Lefein]

Hope you're feeling better!

I am feeling better, almost through it anyway. Thanks for asking.

I am considering deleting the rest of this post, as I am not yet sure of the fruitfulness of this particular path of the discussion, having thought to attempt to start it again on a different path that may be more enriching, and less distasteful for both of us. It is only up for now, as I am not yet certain which parts of it I want to remain for reference sake or for posterity sake for future readers. Thank you for the discussion in this area, it has at least been somewhat engaging, though enraging at the first.

___

Edit: Post deleted, though I may add parts of it from a back up later to a later post for reference sake, and posterity. I don't feel it is fruitful to continue this road of discussion; it isn't leading to understanding between us, or our views (and why I find such displeasure with soulsleep).

[Lefein]

I will freely admit that I do not understand everything, or even most of everything even in this subject. The previous post I gave (and deleted) I don't feel will help either of us in this discussion or bring any level of understanding between us (there are too many barriers and too many complications and complexities in our very polar worldviews on this subject, we're not speaking the same language I feel), so I will try to give a simple thesis statements as to what I believe, and maybe we can try to work from that in this discussion. I will even try to compromise (where in your view I can find agreement with) a bit to see where I can find common ground with you, and so maybe you can find common ground with me and see what it is in your view that makes me so displeased with it; to the enrichment of us both.

But for now I want to try a different route, so lets try again if you are willing.

Beliefs.

"The Individual is not his body, though his body constitutes (gives bodily substance, or shape to) the individual, and expresses him; he is not his body."

"The Individual existentially survives the body, even if the body existentially ceases to exist as a whole object being dissolved into the material system by plants, bacterial, etc; turned into dust."

"The Individual is ideally embodied, but embodiment is not necessary for his existence; because it is ideal he will be embodied again in a higher form."

"The Individual has an identity which includes his transcendent spiritual nature, and his material vessel, expression, constitution. The identity of a person without his body is weakened and made less, but not wholly ceased to be as part of the identity at least rests in the transcendent spiritual nature which is rests in the Individual which survives the body."

"The Individual is the Image of God; which is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. These are "symptoms" of being that Image, which is being the "tangible offspring" of God; a reflection of God's essential and fundamental person in the form of an individual; an "I be" dependent on the "I AM" emanating from that same "I AM", his source and sustainer."

"The Individual is fully God-dependent, God-sustained, God-maintained, God-emanating, God-sourced; even the matter that constitutes the bodily portion of his identity, and expression is so; hence the whole Individuality, identity and all is God-dependent." (matter is also God dependent, so if the body and the spirit are effectively God-dependent, then the Individual is in an ultimate way, solely God dependent)

Speculations I have, that border on belief.

"The Individual when he dies passes into the hands of God, not into permanent unconsciousness (de facto permanent until resurrection), or non-existence. As a subset; The Individual passes more fully into the hands of God, going into the hands of God, or more fully continuing into and embracing the hands of God."

---

There are more, but that will have to wait. I believe these will suffice for now.

[Paidion]

God said, "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Jesus' point was that because of the present tense of that statement, God was right THEN God of those three because He was God of the living and thus they were alive THEN. There was absolutely nothing in that statement about Him being their God that references anything remotely close to a future resurrection event. It would've made no sense to the Sadducees to say, "God said He was their God THEN at that moment because He is the God of the Living, even though they don't exist now and didn't exist then but will someday."

When Jesus said this, He was addressing the fact of the resurrection of the dead (a future event) not the present state of the dead. He was saying it for the benefit of the Sadducees who did not believe in a future resurrection of the dead:

And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:31,32

[AUniversalist]

God said, "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Jesus' point was that because of the present tense of that statement, God was right THEN God of those three because He was God of the living and thus they were alive THEN. There was absolutely nothing in that statement about Him being their God that references anything remotely close to a future resurrection event. It would've made no sense to the Sadducees to say, "God said He was their God THEN at that moment because He is the God of the Living, even though they don't exist now and didn't exist then but will someday."

When Jesus said this, He was addressing the fact of the resurrection of the dead (a future event) not the present state of the dead. He was saying it for the benefit of the Sadducees who did not believe in a future resurrection of the dead:

And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:31,32

Jesus is the resurrection of the dead. Since he did not die prior to this statement in order to be raised from the dead, of course it referred to a future event. Though that event has already passed, therefore today it is a present state.

[Lefein]

I see The Resurrection as both event and present-unfolding state. I believe that there must be far more to the Resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified. God always puts far more into things than what people see it being, and in a positive way he puts far more.

That Jesus is The Resurrection and The Life says to me that The Resurrection and The Life are far more than just events for the physical/material body. Far, far more, and not just in the typical churchy/spiritual idea of it being more while still trying to contain it to event. I mean more.

[AUniversalist]

I see The Resurrection as both event and present-unfolding state. I believe that there must be far more to the Resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified. God always puts far more into things than what people see it being, and in a positive way he puts far more.

That Jesus is The Resurrection and The Life says to me that The Resurrection and The Life are far more than just events for the physical/material body. Far, far more, and not just in the typical churchy/spiritual idea of it being more while still trying to contain it to event. I mean more.

Indeed.

[Lefein]

The Immortality of the Soul

This book, or document might have some interesting tidbits in it. I am especially fond, or concerning myself with the opinions of the early church fathers and the expression of their belief in a soul that survives the body.

[Aaron]

Hi Lefein,

You wrote:

But for now I want to try a different route, so lets try again if you are willing.

Well I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that some of my comments/questions will not see a response from you, but I guess I should just be thankful you still want to discuss this topic in spite of your feelings toward my view!

"The Individual is not his body, though his body constitutes (gives bodily substance, or shape to) the individual, and expresses him; he is not his body."

This we agree on. As human persons we are constituted by our bodies without being identical with our bodies - kind of like how the Statue of Liberty is constituted by copper and steel without being identical with the copper and steel that constitute it.

"The Individual existentially survives the body, even if the body existentially ceases to exist as a whole object being dissolved into the material system by plants, bacterial, etc; turned into dust."

This we disagree on. I believe that when the mortal body by which a human individual is constituted dies, the human individual necessarily dies as well and is "existentially dead." Otherwise, I don't think it would be true that the human individual was constituted by their mortal body. They would've instead been constituted by something other than their mortal body (e.g., what you refer to as an "immortal soul"). Or if they were partly constituted by a mortal body and partly constituted by something else that is immortal, then it would be the latter part of them which would survive the death of the body. But neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture leads me to believe that there exists some immortal part of us that is conscious after death in a disembodied state, and I can't believe in that which I have no good reason to believe exists.

"The Individual is ideally embodied, but embodiment is not necessary for his existence; because it is ideal he will be embodied again in a higher form."

I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I'm not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we're immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we'd be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.

"The Individual has an identity which includes his transcendent spiritual nature, and his material vessel, expression, constitution. The identity of a person without his body is weakened and made less, but not wholly ceased to be as part of the identity at least rests in the transcendent spiritual nature which is rests in the Individual which survives the body."

Neither my experience/observation nor my understanding of Scripture informs me that we have a "transcendent spiritual nature," if by "transcendent spiritual nature" you mean some part of us that survives the death of the body to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. Our identity is not merely "weakened" when that by which we are constituted dies; rather, I believe that when that by which we are constituted dies, we die. If we don't die when our body dies, then it means we weren't constituted by it, or that we were only partly constituted by it. But I think God would have to reveal this to us, and I don't think he has.

"The Individual is the Image of God; which is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. These are "symptoms" of being that Image, which is being the "tangible offspring" of God; a reflection of God's essential and fundamental person in the form of an individual; an "I be" dependent on the "I AM" emanating from that same "I AM", his source and sustainer."

I'm confused by this. You say that being in the image of God is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. But rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God's personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. That is, any being who is rational, moral and self-aware would necessarily bear God's image by virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware. This is certainly consistent with what Scripture teaches regarding man's being made in the image of God, because it is his personhood (i.e., his being rational, moral and self-aware) which separates him from the other "living souls" made by God which are not said to bear God's image. I realize you want to include as part of our identity some sort of "transcendency" over space/matter/time, but for me that's like someone saying man must also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal in every possible sense, and unable to lie in order to bear God's image. And what's more, you believe that even animals have transcendent "immortal souls," so having an immortal soul cannot be that which distinguishes man from those creatures that do not bear God's image.

And since you said previously that you didn't think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love, then it must be possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an "immortal soul." And if that's the case, then man doesn't require an "immortal soul" to do these things. Thinking rationally, being self-aware and having the capacity to love reflects that which is essential and fundamental to who God is, and if man can do these things without an "immortal soul," then man can reflect God's fundamental being without an "immortal soul." So why does man require an "immortal soul?" Is it just so that he can be "transcendent" in the sense that you think he should be "transcendent?" But I would argue that, according to your view, even creatures which do not bear God's image possess the same kind of "transcendency" that you think is so essential for man to possess.

"The Individual is fully God-dependent, God-sustained, God-maintained, God-emanating, God-sourced; even the matter that constitutes the bodily portion of his identity, and expression is so; hence the whole Individuality, identity and all is God-dependent." (matter is also God dependent, so if the body and the spirit are effectively God-dependent, then the Individual is in an ultimate way, solely God dependent)

Agreed!

"The Individual when he dies passes into the hands of God, not into permanent unconsciousness (de facto permanent until resurrection), or non-existence. As a subset; The Individual passes more fully into the hands of God, going into the hands of God, or more fully continuing into and embracing the hands of God."

I believe that when the individual dies he is dead until he is restored by God to life. His body begins to return to the dust from which it was made, and the "breath of life" or "spirit" (i.e., the animating force) "returns to God who gave it." Since this wasn't a conscious thing when God "gave it," I see no reason to believe it is a conscious thing when it "returns to God."

[Aaron]

Justin asked:

Aaron, what do you make of the story of Samuel talking to Saul after he had died?

The following are some comments I made on this passage earlier in the thread in response to Lefein (see viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235#p18378, viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=20#p18557 and viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=20#p18641):

If, when Samuel died, his spirit "returned to God who gave it" (as does the spirit of all "living souls") what was it doing in the ground? For that's where "Samuel" is described as coming from when the medium "conjured him up." In view of this fact it just seems unlikely to me that the entity described as "Samuel" in the narrative is to be equated with something that left Samuel's body at death and returned to God. I think the interpretation of 1 Sam 28 you suggest becomes even less likely when we realize that Solomon (who would have undoubtedly been very familiar with this story about his grandfather Saul) expressed a view concerning the state of the dead that is, I think very much inconsistent with the interpretation of 1 Samuel 28 which presupposes that a dead prophet could do or know anything. Apparently, Solomon did not understand this account to reveal anything about the dead that conflicts with his declarations that both man and beast return to the dust after death (Eccl 3:19-20), that "the dead know nothing" (Eccl 9:5), and that "there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol" (v. 10). It follows, then, that Solomon probably interpreted this passage somewhat differently than you and others do.

The following three views are, I believe, more likely than the one which assumes that people continue to exist in a conscious, disembodied state after death:

1) Samuel had been raised from the dead by God to appear to the medium and speak words of judgment to Saul. That is, Samuel wasn't dead or in Sheol when he appeared to the medium, but had been temporarily restored to a living, embodied, conscious existence. It may be objected that Saul is represented as being unable to see Samuel; thus, Samuel must have been invisible and in a "disembodied state." But Saul's inability to see Samuel can easily be accounted for by the fact that the medium was likely using a "conjuring pit" (or ob). Mediums at this time used large holes in the ground from which they pretended to summon the ghosts of the dead during their séances (the word for this ritualistic hole in the ground used by ancient mediums is an ob). According to Vine's Expository Dictionary, "In its earliest appearances (Sumerian), ob refers to a pit out of which a departed spirit may be summoned. Later Assyrian texts use this word to denote simply a pit in the ground. Akkadian texts describe a deity that is the personification of the pit, to whom a particular exorcism ritual was addressed. Biblical Hebrew attests this word 16 times." Similarly, the Journal of Biblical Literature has this to say on the word ob: "Initially, the term may have hinted of a "hole" from which dead spirits ascended from the spirit-world to earth's environment to communicate with the living, with the word eventually being used for the spirits themselves." (Hoffner, 385-401).

Thus if Samuel had indeed been temporarily restored to a living, embodied existence within this pit, then Saul would not have been able to see him initially unless he was looking down into it (as the medium would have been).

2) Samuel wasn't actually present at all; rather, the author or editor of the narrative was simply adopting the inaccurate perspective of Saul (who had been duped by a phoney medium: http://bertgary.blogspot.com/2009/05/ps ... -fake.html. If this is the case, then this would be one of a number of examples in Scripture where the inspired authors are not describing things as they actually were but rather as they appeared to be from the perspective of those whose beliefs or knowledge was deficient.

3) An angel sent from God was impersonating Samuel. This is a modification of the view that an evil spirit (or "demon") was impersonating Samuel, which was held by a few "church fathers" (such as Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa) as well as by some Protestant theologians (most notably, John Calvin), among others. In De Engastrimytho contra Origenem, Eustathius of Antioch argues for this position against Origen (who believed that Samuel actually appeared): http://books.google.com/books?id=Xt5U2g ... en&f=false

If an angel of God was impersonating Samuel then it may be that the angelic being was called "Samuel" not merely because he appeared as Samuel, but because he was speaking on Samuel's behalf (in which case we may understand this as an example of the Hebrew "law of agency," which, according to the The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion is expressed in the dictum, "a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself"). That is, if it was an angel sent by God to "fool" Saul and the medium, then what he said to Saul should be understood as being what Samuel would have said had he actually been present. To this view it may be objected that a holy angel wouldn't engage in such deception. But in 2 Thess 2:6 we read that God was going to send the wicked people in Paul's day a "strong delusion" so that they would "believe what is false" and be "condemned." So it would seem that God's sending an angelic being to deceive Saul as an act of judgment upon him is not inconsistent with God's righteous and benevolent character (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-23). Moreover, it would not necessarily be sinful for an angel to deceive Saul by impersonating Samuel if the impersonation was done out of obedience to God, and was without evil, self-serving intent (we know Christ himself engaged in some benevolent "deception" on at least one occasion! See Luke 24:28-29).

While it's true that the text doesn't say Samuel was raised to "bodily life," it doesn't say Samuel was in a non-living disembodied state, either. Assuming the medium actually saw Samuel, the medium describes him as having a physical, embodied form (i.e., as an "old man" wrapped in a "robe"). And the fact that Samuel is called a "god" by the medium doesn't really prove anything either way, since Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for "gods" as well (Acts 14:11-12). If God had in fact temporarily restored Samuel to a living, embodied existence (with his mortal body being miraculously and dramatically re-created from within the medium's "conjuring pit"), then I think his being described as a "god" by the medium would've been highly appropriate, since his appearing before the medium was obviously due to a supernatural power beyond that of any mortal man.

Moreover, if Samuel was actually present when he spoke to Saul, then it follows that he wasn't in Sheol. And if he wasn't in Sheol then what he was able to do while not in Sheol is no indication of what those in Sheol can or can't do. And there is nothing said in Scripture about the dead being able to leave Sheol while remaining dead. To be in Sheol is to be in the state of death, and to be delivered from Sheol is to be delivered from death (Ps. 89:48). And in 1 Sam 2:6 we read the following in Hannah's prayer: "The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." The Hebrew parallelism in this verse is clear: those who are killed are brought down to Sheol, and those who are brought to life are raised up from Sheol. If you believe Samuel had been raised up from Sheol to appear before the medium, then, according to what we read in 1 Sam 2:6, Samuel must have been restored by God to life. That is, if Samuel was actually present before the medium (and thus not in Sheol), then there is nothing in Scripture which suggests that he was still dead; rather, the implication would be that he had been (temporarily at least) brought back to life.

While I think the above view is more consistent with the rest of Scripture than the view that Samuel was in a "disembodied state," I'm still inclined to believe that Samuel wasn't actually present at all, but that the story is being narrated from the perspective of Saul (or rather, the men who accompanied Saul), and that the medium was deceiving him.

Assuming Samuel was present, it's not necessary to believe he was present in a disembodied state. The text doesn't say he was disembodied; this has to be inferred by those who already believe that human beings exist in a conscious, disembodied state after death. But again, I don't think it's necessary to believe that the medium saw Samuel at all, or that Saul actually conversed with Samuel. This section of the narrative is most likely from the perspective of the men who were with Saul, with the editor seeing no need to alter their account to explain that their perception was deficient (and if Saul and his companions held to the pagan view that mediums could conjure up the dead, and that the dead could communicate with the living, then their perception of what took place that night would have been very much influenced by this mistaken belief).

How did Saul "know" it was Samuel? Not because he saw Samuel, but because of the description given by the medium. As far as the medium "realizing" it was Saul when Samuel was "conjured up" by her, I think it's more likely that the medium knew it was Saul all along, and that she was merely feigning ignorance. And while it's true that we're also told that when the medium "saw Samuel" she "cried out with a loud voice," the reader should keep in mind that deception was the medium's forte, and that her livelihood would've depended on her ability to "put on a good show" and trick her clients into believing she could actually summon the "spirits of the dead" (the existence of which were believed in by the pagans of that day, as well as those Jews who'd been influenced by pagan beliefs), and that the ghosts she conjured up were actually present and speaking. To do so she would have to feign ignorance, surprise and shock all the time. She was also probably skilled in the art of ventriloquism, and could make it appear that the dead were speaking to the living from out of her "conjuring pit."

So why would the text read as if Samuel had actually been conjured up by the medium if the medium was actually deceiving Saul, and Samuel was not actually there but unconscious in the grave? Answer: Because this was the perception of the person or persons who were originally narrating the facts of what happened. Recall that Scripture speaks of only four persons who witnessed (and thus could have recalled) what actually took place that night: Saul, the medium, and the two men who were travelling with Saul. And since the two men who were with Saul seem to be the most probable source of the information that appears in this part of the narrative, we may reasonably conclude that whoever wrote or edited the book of 1 Samuel simply included what had been recounted to them by one or both of the two men who witnessed what they thought had taken place (i.e., that a medium had actually conjured up the ghost of Samuel, and that Samuel actually spoke to Saul).

To this it may be objected that the editor of 1 Samuel would have altered the account to reflect his own beliefs if he did not think Samuel was actually present but rather believed that Saul and his companions had been duped by a crafty medium. But altering the account so as to make obvious the fact that Samuel wasn't really there would have been thought superfluous by the editor if it was already obvious to him that Saul and his companions were mistaken for believing that the dead could communicate with the living. And if it was common knowledge among the Hebrew people (at least, among those who had not apostatized and embraced pagan views) that mediums had no supernatural power and that "the dead know nothing" (Eccl 9:5) then the editor would have seen even less need to alter the original account so as to explain to the reader what was really happening.

The text describes it as if Samuel were actually present and speaking probably because whoever was recounting the events to the historian who wrote/edited the book of 1 Samuel believed that Samuel was present and speaking. But this in no way means that their perception of what actually took place was completely accurate. If the medium was simply doing exactly what she did every other time a client asked her to contact the dead or give a psychic reading or whatever, then Saul and his companions were deceived into thinking that Samuel had been conjured up or that the dead prophet said anything at all. So if Saul's companions thought Samuel was actually there then we would expect the text to describe what took place from their perspective whether it was accurate or not, since they were most likely the ones from whom the details of what transpired that night were derived. And if they were not deceived, but Samuel was actually present, then it's no more a conjecture to say Samuel had been temporarily raised from the dead by God than to say he was present in a disembodied state when he appeared before the medium.

If the author or editor simply recorded the details of what happened that night as they were recounted by those who were actually there, and if it was common knowledge among God's faithful people that "the dead know nothing," that Saul had embraced pagan ideas, and that mediums don't really have the power to conjure up supernatural entities, then I don't think it's at all unreasonable to believe that the author/editor would allow the narrative to read as it does rather than adding something like, "But the woman did not actually conjure up or see Samuel; Saul and his companions merely thought she did. By doing what a medium does for a living, the woman had deceived them into thinking Samuel was there." Such an explanation would not only be superfluous, but would possibly even insult the Hebrew reader who, unlike Saul, had not so foolishly (and irreverently) embraced such pagan notions regarding the state of the dead.

[Aaron]

Lefein wrote:

I see The Resurrection as both event and present-unfolding state. I believe that there must be far more to the Resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified. God always puts far more into things than what people see it being, and in a positive way he puts far more.

I agree that there is "more to the resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified." Not only will all physical maladies be healed when the dead are raised imperishable and the living changed, but I believe all moral maladies will be healed as well. But this "change" will not be a gradual process; Paul says it will happen "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

That Jesus is The Resurrection and The Life says to me that The Resurrection and The Life are far more than just events for the physical/material body. Far, far more, and not just in the typical churchy/spiritual idea of it being more while still trying to contain it to event. I mean more.

Well if when Christ said he was "the Resurrection" he was referring to what is to take place on the "last day" (John 6:39; 11:24) and at the "last trumpet," then he was referring to an "event" - and not a present, ongoing event which is taking placing gradually over a period of time, but a future event that is to going to take place (for lack of a better word) instantaneously. Or if he was talking about the kind of "resurrection" spoken of in John 5:24 (when he speaks of those who have "passed from death to life"), then this "resurrection" refers to something that may be spoken of as having taken place in the past for the believer (i.e., when, by faith, one is "born again" or "born from above"). Or he may have in view both kinds of "resurrections" (i.e., that which is to take place on the "last day"/at the "last trumpet," and that which takes place when one is "born again") - but even then, we're talking about two different "resurrection events," both of which Christ is responsible for. Either way, Jesus' title "the Resurrection" is highly appropriate. I'm inclined to understand Christ to be referring to the "last day" event when he refers to himself as "the Resurrection," and to the believer's spiritual "rebirth" (when one passes "from death to life" by faith) when he refers to himself as "the Life."

[Aaron]

This book, or document might have some interesting tidbits in it. I am especially fond, or concerning myself with the opinions of the early church fathers and the expression of their belief in a soul that survives the body.

For another helpful and inspiring book by Luther Lee, I recommend the following:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gJQ3AA ... &q&f=false

Just kidding, of course (at least, about the "inspiring" part; some believers in UR might still find it helpful).

As for the "early church fathers" and their fondness for the idea that the "soul" refers to something that "survives the body," it's well known that most of these "church fathers" were highly influenced by Greek philosophy, which (whether intentionally or not) they blended with Christian theology.

For a book defending the opposite view (and which was written in the same century), I recommend the following by Miles Grant, who was an annihilationist (which, to be fair, is not much better than Lee's position!):

http://books.google.com/books?id=XbUUAA ... ty&f=false

[Lefein]

Well I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that some of my comments/questions will not see a response from you, but I guess I should just be thankful you still want to discuss this topic in spite of your feelings toward my view!

I am likewise surprised you still want to discuss it with me, seeing my feelings towards your view. But none of my view is towards you, only your view; but for reasons which really are difficult to explain (not that they are unfounded, only that they are so deep that words aren't very good at it).

I just felt it would be easier, and more Christlike, if I could put aside my contempt and try to meet you in a way that I could make more impact in the understanding. Try to speak your language I guess, rather than trying to enforce mine.

This we agree on. As human persons we are constituted by our bodies without being identical with our bodies - kind of like how the Statue of Liberty is constituted by copper and steel without being identical with the copper and steel that constitute it.

Yes. Very much so, and that is one thing in your post that I agreed with that made me consider taking it down so I could go this route. While I believe the human body, and even matter itself is important and beautiful for manifesting the invisible nature; I believe that nature continues or survives the body.

You might say, that Liberty lives on even if the statue of it is destroyed. This is my view of it, which I had wanted to allude to in my removed post.

This we disagree on. I believe that when the mortal body by which a human individual is constituted dies, the human individual necessarily dies as well and is "existentially dead." Otherwise, I don't think it would be true that the human individual was constituted by their mortal body. They would've instead been constituted by something other than their mortal body (e.g., what you refer to as an "immortal soul"). Or if they were partly constituted by a mortal body and partly constituted by something else that is immortal, then it would be the latter part of them which would survive the death of the body. But neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture leads me to believe that there exists some immortal part of us that is conscious after death in a disembodied state, and I can't believe in that which I have no good reason to believe exists.

This is where I believe that the "immortal soul" is constituted, or maintained rather; by the Immortal God. Without God sustaining everything, it would not survive. But that God sustains it, it does.

I do not think so much, atleast according to my understanding that the soul is immortal in and of itself, but that the imperishableness of it is by reason of God.

I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I'm not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we're immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we'd be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.

I believe this is not necessarily correct, because we exist in multiple dimensions; not just 3 or 4. I don't think being immaterial necessitates material embodiment in order to be localised. Take for example; Angelic beings.

Neither my experience/observation nor my understanding of Scripture informs me that we have a "transcendent spiritual nature," if by "transcendent spiritual nature" you mean some part of us that survives the death of the body to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. Our identity is not merely "weakened" when that by which we are constituted dies; rather, I believe that when that by which we are constituted dies, we die. If we don't die when our body dies, then it means we weren't constituted by it, or that we were only partly constituted by it. But I think God would have to reveal this to us, and I don't think he has.

It is common belief, and was common belief then amongst both Jews, and Pagans. It is a human belief in general, just like belief in Deity.

I gave a link to a book that has more information that is relavent to this area; with both Biblical notions and Historic.

I'm confused by this. You say that being in the image of God is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. But rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God's personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. That is, any being who is rational, moral and self-aware would necessarily bear God's image by virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware. This is certainly consistent with what Scripture teaches regarding man's being made in the image of God, because it is his personhood (i.e., his being rational, moral and self-aware) which separates him from the other "living souls" made by God which are not said to bear God's image. I realize you want to include as part of our identity some sort of "transcendency" over space/matter/time, but for me that's like someone saying man must also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal in every possible sense, and unable to lie in order to bear God's image. And what's more, you believe that even animals have transcendent "immortal souls," so having an immortal soul cannot be that which distinguishes man from those creatures that do not bear God's image.

Only if you want to go to the full extreme. That man is has an evil nature, and does evil things, and often acts very irrational, immoral, and has too much self-awareness to the point of only caring for his own survival, reproduction, and passing on of genes I could go the other extreme and say that Man must not be made in the image of God at all; but is merely a very cunning animal.

And since you said previously that you didn't think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love, then it must be possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an "immortal soul." And if that's the case, then man doesn't require an "immortal soul" to do these things. Thinking rationally, being self-aware and having the capacity to love reflects that which is essential and fundamental to who God is, and if man can do these things without an "immortal soul," then man can reflect God's fundamental being without an "immortal soul." So why does man require an "immortal soul?" Is it just so that he can be "transcendent" in the sense that you think he should be "transcendent?" But I would argue that, according to your view, even creatures which do not bear God's image possess the same kind of "transcendency" that you think is so essential for man to possess.

I don't think it is impossible. But I don't believe God did it - because I believe he did something better.

Do you believe it is impossible for God to give man a transcendent Individuality that survives the body, and will be re-embodied again? That God cannot sustain a disembodied, or even temporarily housed, by his presence, in his presence, and to have enough love and comfort (or correction) to amply requite that Individual, and then give a body that even more so expresses God's infinite and fathomless love?

Is it better to go directly into being in the presence of God (for bliss or for correct) than to wait centuries (even if they are unpercieved) and recieve immediately the gift of his presence, as well as the gift of the Resurrection? Rather than just having it all (for some) thousands of years later?

As for other creatures who do not bear his image; I do believe they posess some kind of transcendency. "I believe there are pets in Heaven"

I believe that when the individual dies he is dead until he is restored by God to life. His body begins to return to the dust from which it was made, and the "breath of life" or "spirit" (i.e., the animating force) "returns to God who gave it." Since this wasn't a conscious thing when God "gave it," I see no reason to believe it is a conscious thing when it "returns to God."

I believe that the Individual who at least is in Life (Christ), stays in Life (Christ). For those who are not in Life, I do not know for certain. But I believe they have some form of existence that is beyond the body.

As for the spirit being conscious; God is Spirit, and he is conscious. The Holy Spirit is also conscious, as are angels, and spirits. Spirits are shown in an anthropomorphic light in various Bible passages.

2 Chronicles 18:18-21 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'

Luke 24:37-39 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

That spirits in general show consciousness, or anthropomorphic qualities is enough for me to believe that our spirits are also of that same sort, that we are by some significant means our spirits.

I agree that there is "more to the resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified." Not only will all physical maladies be healed when the dead are raised imperishable and the living changed, but I believe all moral maladies will be healed as well. But this "change" will not be a gradual process; Paul says it will happen "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

Even this is not what I mean by "more".

Well if when Christ said he was "the Resurrection" he was referring to what is to take place on the "last day" (John 6:39; 11:24) and at the "last trumpet," then he was referring to an "event" - and not a present, ongoing event which is taking placing gradually over a period of time, but a future event that is to going to take place (for lack of a better word) instantaneously. Or if he was talking about the kind of "resurrection" spoken of in John 5:24 (when he speaks of those who have "passed from death to life"), then this "resurrection" refers to something that may be spoken of as having taken place in the past for the believer (i.e., when, by faith, one is "born again" or "born from above"). Or he may have in view both kinds of "resurrections" (i.e., that which is to take place on the "last day"/at the "last trumpet," and that which takes place when one is "born again") - but even then, we're talking about two different "resurrection events," both of which Christ is responsible for. Either way, Jesus' title "the Resurrection" is highly appropriate. I'm inclined to understand Christ to be referring to the "last day" event when he refers to himself as "the Resurrection," and to the believer's spiritual "rebirth" (when one passes "from death to life" by faith) when he refers to himself as "the Life."

I don't think so, from context. When Lazarus' sister said; "I know he will rise again on the last day" Jesus said, and angrily so (he was indignant throughout the account) "I am the Resurrection and the Life! Do you believe this?" And then he raised Lazarus then and there, not in a glorified body we can assume, but none the less raised him up proving his power over Death.

Jesus is the Resurrection, and the Life "Today" as well as "Tomorrow". And he never changes.

I don't believe the Resurrection and the Life is just a thing for the future, I don't believe it can be because Jesus isn't just for the future.

[Lefein]

As for the "early church fathers" and their fondness for the idea that the "soul" refers to something that "survives the body," it's well known that most of these "church fathers" were highly influenced by Greek philosophy, which (whether intentionally or not) they blended with Christian theology.

I don't see problems with Greek Philosophy having influence, personally. The Greeks were already well on their way to believing in Monotheism by reason of the Philosophers; Plato for example was a monotheist if I recall correctly. I believe that God was working in the hearts of the Greeks well before the Christian era, as God is not just the God of the Jews, and the Jewish "mind and ideas" are not the corner market bearers on divine thought or truths, I believe God can inspire a heathen too, and did.

The Jews for the majority had also embraced this idea as well, and I don't believe that just because the idea is "Greek" that it is negated of its value as being "true". I do not see any instances myself where Christ stood up and said; "The Greeks are wrong!" in paraphrase, but commended certain Gentiles for their faith in fact. The idea of a soul apart form the body is not just Greek either, but spans most of Human-kind. From the Norse to the Babylonians, to the Egyptians to the far east. Even the Americas.

I personally don't believe that the Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas, or that their ideas ultimately significantly mount over those of the early church Fathers, Greek or not who were Spirit filled themselves. But even the Jews had accepted this belief (apart from a heretical minority sect; the Sadducees) as truth, and Christ again I don't see having said anything against this belief, in a direct sense. Christ's silence on the matter, that would have been common thought, is telling to me that it isn't a gross error. He derided many of the Pharisees actions, and beliefs; but not their beliefs regarding the afterlife. The Sadducees however who did not belief in an afterlife, the Resurrection, or spirits, or angels; he spoke against directly in this area.

The majority of the Jews, the Early Church fathers (and believers), and the majority of Humanity believed in a soul that passes on after physical death tells me that this is not just mere fancy.

[Paidion]

I would like to question the concept of an immaterial "soul" or "spirit" (hereafter called simply "soul") existing apart from our body in light of our human experience.

A 2y-old child is immature in its thinking. Is its soul immature also? Does the soul mature along with the body as the child grows?
If so, is the concept of a maturing soul consistent with the belief in the pre-existence of the SS?

When a person is struck hard on the head with a club, he may be rendered unconscious. A physical club having contact with a physical head. Did the soul become unconscious? How can doing something physical to a physical body affect an immaterial soul?

When a person is deeply troubled in his soul, stomach ulcers sometimes result. How can an activity of the immaterial soul affect the physical body?

As a person gets older, he sometimes develops a mental condition in which he does not know what he is doing, and does not recognized his loved ones, even his spouse? How can aging affect the immaterial soul? If his soul departs at death, will it retain its mental condition at the time of death? Or will God instantly restore it to an earlier state? And which earlier state? Age 5? 10? 20? 40? 60?

There seems to be so many inconsistencies with reality in holding to a concept of an immaterial soul, the real "you" which somehow lives in your body, conjoined to your body while it lives, and separated from it when you die.

If you believe in the Platonic concept of the soul/body distinction, please address some or all of the problems I have described above.

[Lefein]

A 2y-old child is immature in its thinking. Is its soul immature also? Does the soul mature along with the body as the child grows?
If so, is the concept of a maturing soul consistent with the belief in the pre-existence of the SS?

It is possible I suppose.

When a person is struck hard on the head with a club, he may be rendered unconscious. A physical club having contact with a physical head. Did the soul become unconscious? How can doing something physical to a physical body affect an immaterial soul?

I believe it may have and can.

When a person is deeply troubled in his soul, stomach ulcers sometimes result. How can an activity of the immaterial soul affect the physical body?

The same way events in the material world bothers the immaterial God, and the same way the immaterial God causes effects in the material world. (though of course, not on a God-sized scope, its just an example)

As a person gets older, he sometimes develops a mental condition in which he does not know what he is doing, and does not recognized his loved ones, even his spouse? How can aging affect the immaterial soul? If his soul departs at death, will it retain its mental condition at the time of death? Or will God instantly restore it to an earlier state? And which earlier state? Age 5? 10? 20? 40? 60?

The soul is connected to the body and functions through it, but I do not believe that soul depends on the body to exist. I believe that soul will regain that mental condition; as it would be in God's hands (at least for the Christian, most likely for the rest) and God heals. I believe God will restore it to its most efficient state of memory, capacity, and mental function.

There seems to be so many inconsistencies with reality in holding to a concept of an immaterial soul, the real "you" which somehow lives in your body, conjoined to your body while it lives, and separated from it when you die.

These are mostly due to, I believe, science and medical knowledge having not yet advanced enough to see how such things function.

I see more inconsistency with the idea that I am just a body (even a rational, self-aware, moral one). That the soul is connected to the body and functions through it I do not believe necessitates that the soul be irreversibly dependent on it. The soul depends on God to exist, as much as the body. That God maintains both body and soul tells me that the body is not the life-giver to the soul.

Metaphorically, we require a womb in order to be born, but just because the umbilical cord is cut that doesn't mean we stop existing or growing. Now I can't take this metaphor to every length, but again its just an example.

Soulsleep causes all kinds of literal separations between a person and God, things that should never cause separation to begin with; things that Jesus came to remove, to disempower as separators. Death is one example, Time is another (nothing shall separate us from the love of God, neither life nor death, nor powers, nor principalities, etc, etc). That Death has not been removed as a concept or property (yet) in our physical material world of 4 dimensions, does not mean that it hasn't been disarmed. And I don't believe that I will experience any separation from him, not by Time, nor by Death, nor by Soulsleep. I don't believe I will "existentially cease to exist", just because my body goes back to the dust. I don't see how I could be the image of God and not be a spirit who returns back to him.

[Paidion]

Lefein, Aaron made perfectly clear that no one suggests that a human being is "only a body." To attack that position is to attack a straw man. We believe that consciousness is an aspect of the body, but more than the body, just as a bicycle is more than the sum of its parts. If one were "only a body" he would be in the same position as Adam was in before God breathed the breath of life into him and he received a soul. Woops! I made a mistake there. It doesn't say he received a soul. It says he became a living soul. The whole living being called "Adam" was a soul. That included his body. God didn't pick out from a bundle of "souls" a being which He labelled "Adam" and thrust it into the body He created. No. Rather Body + Spirit of Life = Soul.

Nor do I believe in "soul sleep". I don't believe in the existence of souls (in the Platonic sense) at all. You don't have a soul that sleeps. You don't have a disembodied soul that goes somewhere after death. If you don't have a body, you are not a soul any longer. You don't exist. When you die, you're dead, and you'll stay dead until God raises you to life. Jesus didn't go to heaven at death. He was dead for 3 days. Then God raised Him from the dead and He ascended to heaven. We, too, will not get to heaven until after we are raised from the dead.

[Lefein]

When I say "just a body" what I am saying is that my existential person is not body-dependent.

If my existence requires a body, then my existence is effectively (or at least practically) my embodiment, which isn't much of a stretch from saying "I am my body" for all practical purposes. If the spirit is just animating force, batteries, and the soul only comes about by an animation of a body; then the soul is effectively that body as it would be hardwired to it, dependent on it, and without which non-existent. It is not a mere strawman that I am attacking, but a concept being expressed here; that a person is body-dependent to exist.

I believe that I am a spirit (a living 'immaterial' being, angels are spirits for example) first and foremost, my existence is not body-dependent; it is God-dependent. I will not see Death, I will by no means die by reason of the age (never die as the KJV puts it). That I physically die is gain, as I go from the land of the living to Life Himself. Nothing, neither life nor death, (nor time) shall separate me from God.

That Adam became a living soul when the breath of life entered the dust is not much different from a baby becoming a baby when the sperm and egg meet in the womb. The baby does not depend on the womb to exist, only to live and function in its development until it is time to be born.

[Lefein]

But as for cessation of existence at death; which is what I am calling soulsleep here. I want to offer this mind experiment.

If there was a perfectly made clone of you, with memory intact and functioning; would that person (clone) be you? Or would you be that person (clone)?

And another thought; would you equate cessation of existence with perishing? According to the dictionary anyway, that is what is implied. I just want to make sure our terms are in sync here.

[AUniversalist]

Scripture states a Soul is Body (in our earthly case, one made of dust) and Spirit (Life which comes from God).

Living Soul = Body + Spirit

[Paidion]

What would a "dead soul" be? And how can a living person touch a dead soul?

Numbers 19:11 ‘He who touches the dead soul of anyone shall be unclean seven days.

Oh, I know. The King James and other translations render the Hebrew word "nephesh" as "body" in this context. But in Genesis, the same Hebrew word is rendered "soul" as in "... and man became a living soul." What the Hebrew word REALLY means is "being". Man became a living being. We read in Genesis about the "souls of beasts", that is the "beings of beasts."
Otherwise, if we have in mind the Platonic concept of "soul", then beasts have souls as well. Indeed, Plato thought that if we don't behave well in this world, we may become as animal in our next reincarnation.

[Lefein]

Oh, I know. The King James and other translations render the Hebrew word "nephesh" as "body" in this context. But in Genesis, the same Hebrew word is rendered "soul" as in "... and man became a living soul." What the Hebrew word REALLY means is "being". Man became a living being. We read in Genesis about the "souls of beasts", that is the "beings of beasts."
Otherwise, if we have in mind the Platonic concept of "soul", then beasts have souls as well. Indeed, Plato thought that if we don't behave well in this world, we may become as animal in our next reincarnation.

I am open to a contextual reading of soul being 'being', but I do not believe that is the limitation (based on many other verses) of the reading of 'soul' or 'nephesh', or 'psuche' in the Greek.

I also do not believe in Reincarnation for other reasons.

---

On a side note, there has been some consideration on my part for the body and its purpose, as well as soul-spirit/body connectivity, things for me to think about anyway.

[atHisfeet]

On top of that, to move the comma in order to change what Jesus said to the thief on the cross is to miss the true import (IMHO) of what He is saying to ALL who are "crucified with Him", which is "TODAY shalt thou be with me in paradise".

No one "moved the comma in order to change what Jesus said". There are no commas in the Greek text, and no other punctuation either. Indeed the whole text was written in upper-case letters with no spaces between the words.

What happened was that Bible translators inserted a comma where they thought it should go.

It's not odd that Jesus may have said, "I tell you today, you shall be with me in paradise." Even in current English, we hear people say, "I'm telling you right now ...."

Paidion,

Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I guess I am not subscribed to this thread and it's been while since I've been here.

When I speak of "moving the comma", I am obviously speaking of the translation(s) that we are using today which do have added punctuation... and, in those translation, the comma has to be moved (from one place to the other, regardless of which place it's been added) in order to "change" the meaning of the statement - whether in support of or in opposition to the doctrine of "soul sleep". Correct?

Certainly it is true that without the punctuation the statement could be read "either way". But, as I explained, I believe that we miss the spiritual message being relayed by Christ unless we place the comma "before" the phrase "today shalt thou be with me in paradise". And I believe that because of how I understand the "thousand years" (which is ONE DAY to the Lord) in relation to THE NIGHT (= YESTERDAY, when it is past) and THE DAY (= TODAY, when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts). I believe that understanding what "TODAY" means is extremely significant to understanding what Jesus is telling this thief who is being "crucified with him"... for is the same promise made TO US when we are "crucified with him".

Most people see only a reign of LIFE associated with the "thousand years" but God divided "one day" into "two days" when He separated THE LIGHT from THE DARKNESS and called the darkness NIGHT and the light DAY, if we are to understand that night, when it is past, is "as yesterday".

I believe to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Yes, plenty of people "quote" the words of Paul as "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." But Paul didn't write that! If you look it up and read the statement in context, you might come up with a different interpretation.

I already stipulated that it is not written "that way" and explained that the two phrased are joined together by the conjunction "and". So why accuse me of taking the passage "out of context" just because I disagree with your interpretation (one I have already said I once agreed with)? But it is one that I think you have to "back into" this verse with in order to make this verse fit the doctrine.

If I said: "I am going to paint my bedroom blue AND green" would you somehow come to the conclusion that I was going to paint it only blue and then, sometime later (much later, perhaps), paint it green? If I said: "I am going to pick up Jane AND go to the mall" would you think that I am talking about two different trips? One in which I am going to pick up Jane and another one in which I am going to go to the mall (which may or may not even include Jane)? If not, then why should I believe that when Paul says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord" he means to imply something other than the first condition (being "absent from the body") RESULTING IN the second condition (being "present with the Lord")?

I don't believe that ANYONE who doesn't already believe in the doctrine of soul sleep would ever read this passage "that way". I certainly never read it that way until I had to start arguing "in favor of" the doctrine of soul sleep... which, unless read 'that way', this passage does NOT support.

I don't believe that anyone would believe that someone saying: "I would rather be absent from the body AND present with the Lord" is not expecting TO BE "present with the Lord" as soon as they ARE "absent from the body". And I certainly would not expect someone to PREFER to be absent from the body or be TORN between remaining or going if they didn't actually believe that BEING "absent from the body" meant BEING "present with the Lord".

Why would Paul have been torn between staying with those who needed him and going to sleep in the dust (for however long it took him to be resurrected from the dead), when he knew that it was more needful for them that he remain (that being the very reason he was torn) and he knew that as soon as he did depart wolves would come in among them not sparing the flock?

[atHisfeet]

.
.I wrote this awhile back, but my view has morphed a bit, so please read beyond the quoted text:

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his [Jesus'] resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Hmm. just thinking out loud here. Jesus died a real death. He overcame death and was resurrected. When he was ressurrected, He overcame death for all. The graves were opened and many bodies of the saint which slept arose. I do not think this was literaly physical bodies but spiritual bodies. "appeared unto many".... I see thas as being in visions/dreams. This type of thing, I believe, happens still today, sometimes, when a loved one dies, the loved one will appear in a dream to a family member and they are ok, they are healed, they are not dead but alive! (in in a different realm, in a different dimension, "back home" in other words.)

Now, since Jesus' ressurrection, since death has been overcome...this is now no more "sleep", a person dies and now do not lay in the earth "asleep" but now passes into life. REAL life. They go back home. Jesus' ressurrection was the dividing point. The event that took place in time which symbolized not only spiritual life (of those alive on earth) overcoming spiritual death, but actual literal death being overcome.

Lazarus raised. Was Jesus showing them what was to come, in more ways than one? Not only a foreshadowing of Christ's death and resurrection... but a promise, that death will be overcome?? Not just spiritual death, mind you... but physical death. Mary said she believed that Lazarus would be raised on the last day. But Jesus brought him back and was basically saying... NO, look... have faith. Lazarus is NOT dead. He was showing them not only compassion, not only the power of the Father, but a foreshadowing also of death being overcome. Lazarus raised pointed to Jesus... a foretaste of what Jesus was to also accomplish.[/color]

Those thoughts I had back then have led up to my current way of thinking and seeing all of this in that I don't believe ANYONE was "asleep" or in "soul sleep" when they died before Jesus was ressurected. I think the spirit of man has ALWAYS gone on after death. I am wondering if perhaps the "dividing point" was more "NOW we KNOW". Just like Jesus came to correct our views on so many things.. for example, "You have heard it say, an eye for an eye... but I SAY"

Perhaps the dividing point wasn't "NOW human beings will no longer "sleep" after death", perhaps it was "Now human beings have the knowledge that they do not "sleep" after death". Are you guys following me?

I believe the "dead bodies" that walked out of the graves, was like I said before, visions that people had of their loved ones. That is just a personal opinion. I have experienced this myself, in my own life. The events were absolutely life-changing to me and have not been able to be explained away as coincidence or wishful thinking. It was too strong.

Native Americans (not sure if it is a certain tribe or what, I know Cherokee does) believe that when a loved one passes over, they come back in a dream to a family member to let them know they are ok. So many people have had this phenomenon. I myself, would probably be skeptical if I didn't have the experiences myself.

Well, I'm just throwing this stuff out there. I'm not trying to really prove anything or get involved in a lengthy debate... just wanted to share some ideas and perspectives and thoughts with you guys. Feel free of course to pick it apart, etc. I'll of course respond! I just kind of dig discussions, laid-back talking than debates. Been through too many debates on message boards, kinda burned out. Wow.. can you tell? Looks like I'm already preparing myself to go on the defense... LOL.


peace,
sparrow

This is pretty much how I see it as well. I don't think anything "changed" post-Jesus. I believe that the Word being made flesh manifest into "sight" those things that are "not seen". We have been "crucifying Christ" since the very foundation of the world, which is why He is called "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'. We have "crucified' THE TRUTH in OUR MINDS (which is why Jesus was crucified "in a place called a skull") and "buried it' IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH, after a spiritual truth, for as long as mankind has existed. And when HE IS RAISED FROM THE DEAD (within us) we are RAISED WITH HIM, which is why OUR LIFE IS HID with Christ and God and it not until HE (who is our life) APPEARS that we APPEAR WITH HIM (Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory).

So many seem to be quoting Martha, saying... "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day". And they almost pay no attention to (or don't properly understand) Jesus' reply when He said: "I AM the resurrection and the life".

If "the spirit" that returns to God is nothing more that a "breath of life" that has no consciousness and is simply present to give men (and animals) natural life, then why is that God's spirit bears witness to OUR SPIRIT that we are he children of God? Why does our SPIRIT need to be "quickened"? Why did Paul say that he turned a man over to satan 'for the destruction of the flesh, that HIS SPIRIT might be saved in the day of the Lord"?

We need to remember that Cain (the "type" of the first, natural man) WAS NOT COUNTED in the generations of Adam "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him". We need to see that God breathing 'the breath of life" into Adam's nostrils to make him "a living soul" is a picture of God sending forth His spirit into US (who are "dead" IN SIN... the soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE) "a LIVING soul". The flesh is not being counted when Jesus says that those who LIVE AND BELIEVE (having PASSED from death unto life, by having Christ (LIFE) formed IN THEM) shall never die.

The "resurrection of the dead", as I see it, has nothing whatsoever to do with corpses. It is THIS MORTAL and THIS CORRUPTIBLE that must "put on" IMMORTALITY and INCORRUPTION by being CLOTHED with Christ. And Paul is clear that our desire is NOT "to be unclothed" but TO BE "clothed upon". And it then that mortality is swallowed up of LIFE... has nothing to do with the flesh for it came from dust and it returns to dust... and we know that if this earthly tabernacle were DISSOLVED that WE HAVE "a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens".

The "graves" that were opened and the "grave" from which we need to be redeemed is "the body of this death" that is "full of dead men's bones" and whose THROAT is "an open sepulcher" and whose TONGUE is "a world of iniquity... set on fire of hell". And that redemption come when we come to know the power of HIS (Christ's) RESURRECTION (= THE FIRST RESURRECTION).

For we know that having been BURIED WITH HIM IN DEATH (= SECOND DEATH) we shall also walk in THE NEWNESS OF LIFE, by being RAISED WITH HIM (= FIRST RESURRECTION).... every man in His own order.

[atHisfeet]

Clearly, the apostle Paul didn't believe in an immediate resurrection at death.

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, {Or by the word of the Lord} that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. I Thessalonians 4:15-18 ESV

Paul indicates in this passage that the dead in Christ will rise from death when Christ returns.

The "dead in Christ" are among those who "remain"... they are "dead" in sin. As it was "even when we were dead in sin" that we were "quickened together with Christ", making Him Lord of BOTH "the living" AND "the dead".

That is why Paul tells us not to mourn for those "who sleep". He's not comforting us about believers. Why should believers be mourning for other believers? He is speaking of unbelievers... the "tares" of which Jesus (also) said would be gathered "first".

[Paidion]

I don't believe that anyone would believe that someone saying: "I would rather be absent from the body AND present with the Lord" is not expecting TO BE "present with the Lord" as soon as they ARE "absent from the body". And I certainly would not expect someone to PREFER to be absent from the body or be TORN between remaining or going if they didn't actually believe that BEING "absent from the body" meant BEING "present with the Lord".

Whether when we die, we are actually dead until the resurrection, or whether we take off at death as a disembodied spirit into the presence of the Lord, our personal experience will be identical! For the next thing of which we will be conscious subsequent to death will be enjoying the presence of the Lord.

I was a bit apprehensive about my first surgery. I thought that when I was rendered unconscious it would be like entering a horrible, dark hole. When lying on the operating table, I glanced at the clock. It was 1 P.M. Then I heard what sounded like faint voices. I glanced at the clock again and it was 3 P.M. The surgery was over, and I have no memory of anything between 1 and 3. I am guessing that this is what it will be like between our death and our resurrection. To us, we will die at one instant and be with the Lord at the next ---- even if the actual time between the events is 3000 years! So as far as what we, personally, will experience, it doesn't matter which view is correct.

[atHisfeet]

I don't believe that anyone would believe that someone saying: "I would rather be absent from the body AND present with the Lord" is not expecting TO BE "present with the Lord" as soon as they ARE "absent from the body". And I certainly would not expect someone to PREFER to be absent from the body or be TORN between remaining or going if they didn't actually believe that BEING "absent from the body" meant BEING "present with the Lord".

Whether when we die, we are actually dead until the resurrection, or whether we take off at death as a disembodied spirit into the presence of the Lord, our personal experience will be identical! For the next thing of which we will be conscious subsequent to death will be enjoying the presence of the Lord.

I was a bit apprehensive about my first surgery. I thought that when I was rendered unconscious it would be like entering a horrible, dark hole. When lying on the operating table, I glanced at the clock. It was 1 P.M. Then I heard what sounded like faint voices. I glanced at the clock again and it was 3 P.M. The surgery was over, and I have no memory of anything between 1 and 3. I am guessing that this is what it will be like between our death and our resurrection. To us, we will die at one instant and be with the Lord at the next ---- even if the actual time between the events is 3000 years! So as far as what we, personally, will experience, it doesn't matter which view is correct.

Helo Paidion

I understand that when it comes to our perception that there would be no difference between the two. But I do think it is important to have a proper understanding of "the resurrection of the dead". And I think we can only have a proper understanding of the resurrection of the dead if we have a proper understanding of who the dead are and how they are raised.

I do not believe that when we physically die that we are still waiting for "the resurrection of the dead". I believe that Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life and just as we were baptized into HIS DEATH (= second death) so did we have part in HIS RESURRECTION (= the first resurrection).

Some will say... well yeah, but only figuratively, because they don't believe we are truly resurrected from the dead until our physical bodies are resurrected and/or changed into the type of body that Jesus had after His resurrection... one that is "flesh and bones" but that can also pass through walls, materialize in locked rooms, and/or disappear at will. But that is not how I see the dead or the resurrection of the dead nor what I understand to be the reason why Jesus appeared as He did, in a body of flesh and bones, after His resurrection.

A "soul" (nephesh) is "a breathing creature" and what makes that "soul" LIVING or DEAD is "the breath of life" (ie the Spirit of God). God sends forth His spirit as we are "created". He takes it away and we "return to dust" (to our natural, carnal state). As I see it, when God said; "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" he was not talking about physical death (man has always been MORTAL.. it is THIS MORTAL that must PUT ON immortality, that ONLY CHRIST has). He was talking about the same thing James was talking about when he said:

Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

That is the "death" that is "the wages of sin", the "death" Adam suffered in the garden, and the "death" that was passed on to all men - for all men have sinned. And it is THIS "death" from which we need to be "resurrected". It is not a postmortem event tied (mostly) to physically dead bodies, but one that must take place "in this world" for it is THIS MORTAL who is "putting on" IMMORTALITY.

It is not about being "unclothed" but about being "clothed upon". And Paul said that if this earthly tabernacle were DISSOLVED that would KNOW that WE HAVE that house not made with hands. It is not a body that we must wait for but one that is reserved for us in the heavens.

[atHisfeet]

Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

These are all written in the present tense..

[Paidion]

I do not believe that when we physically die that we are still waiting for "the resurrection of the dead". I believe that Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life and just as we were baptized into HIS DEATH (= second death) so did we have part in HIS RESURRECTION (= the first resurrection).

How do you harmonize your disbelief in a physical resurrection with the words of Paul in I Cor 15 in which he describes the resurrection as most physical indeed?

32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul certainly seems to be saying that if there is no resurrection we will eventually die and remain dead, so what good was all his sacrifice for the sake of witnessing for Christ? He might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for there is nothing beyond death for him.

35 ¶ But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

It sounds to me as if Paul is saying that the resurrection body is as different from our present body as a wheat plant is different from a grain of wheat. Though a wheat plant differs greatly from a grain of wheat, they are nevertheless both wheat. Although the resurrection body differs greatly from our present mortal body, nevertheless both are bodies.

51 ¶ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

Does this not tell us not all people will die a physical death? (figuratively called "sleep" Even Jesus said of a girl who had died, "She is sleeping". But when others thought He was speaking of natural sleep, told them plainly, "She is dead").
Not all shall die. Some will be alive at His coming, but at that time they shall all be changed instantly in the sense that their mortal bodies will put on immortality. The immortal bodies into which those who are alive at His coming, shall be changed, are identical to the immortal bodies which the raised saints will possess when they become alive again at Jesus' second coming.

[atHisfeet]

Lefein, Aaron made perfectly clear that no one suggests that a human being is "only a body." To attack that position is to attack a straw man. We believe that consciousness is an aspect of the body, but more than the body, just as a bicycle is more than the sum of its parts. If one were "only a body" he would be in the same position as Adam was in before God breathed the breath of life into him and he received a soul. Woops! I made a mistake there. It doesn't say he received a soul. It says he became a living soul. The whole living being called "Adam" was a soul. That included his body. God didn't pick out from a bundle of "souls" a being which He labelled "Adam" and thrust it into the body He created. No. Rather Body + Spirit of Life = Soul.

Yet, "the soul (= a BREATHING creature) that sinneth, it shall die".

And in the day that Adam sinned, Adam (a LIVING soul) "died" (becoming a DEAD soul).

That has no bearing on Adam's physical condition, it concerns his spiritual condition.

We "are dead" in sin and yet when God sends forth His spirit we, too, are "made a LIVING soul" and "translated into the kingdom of God" (the garden God planted eastward in Eden).

So while it may be "body + spirit = soul", there is a NATURAL body and there is a SPIRITUAL body. And it is not "the spirit of man" that makes one " a LIVING soul", it is the spirit OF GOD that makes one "a LIVING soul". And that which was sewn IS NATURAL while that which is raised IS SPIRITUAL.

Nor do I believe in "soul sleep". I don't believe in the existence of souls (in the Platonic sense) at all. You don't have a soul that sleeps. You don't have a disembodied soul that goes somewhere after death. If you don't have a body, you are not a soul any longer. You don't exist. When you die, you're dead, and you'll stay dead until God raises you to life. Jesus didn't go to heaven at death. He was dead for 3 days. Then God raised Him from the dead and He ascended to heaven. We, too, will not get to heaven until after we are raised from the dead.

It's not a "disembodied" soul. It is a soul with A SPIRITUAL BODY. And it is "the body of Christ".

Jesus being "crucified in a place called a SKULL" and being buried in a physical tomb for three days and three nights is "a figure" of something far greater - that cannot be seen with the natural eye.

Man has been "crucifying" THE TRUTH since the very foundation of the world. We became enemies IN OUR MINDS and OUR LIFE WAS HID (with Christ in God) by being BURIED "in the heart of the earth" (WITHIN US) until that SEED/WORD which was PLANTED (for it fell into the ground and DIED) is "raised from the dead"... AND WE WITH HIM!

HE IS RISEN!

WE ARE RISEN!!

[atHisfeet]

I do not believe that when we physically die that we are still waiting for "the resurrection of the dead". I believe that Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life and just as we were baptized into HIS DEATH (= second death) so did we have part in HIS RESURRECTION (= the first resurrection).

How do you harmonize your disbelief in a physical resurrection with the words of Paul in I Cor 15 in which he describes the resurrection as most physical indeed?

32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul certainly seems to be saying that if there is no resurrection we will eventually die and remain dead, so what good was all his sacrifice for the sake of witnessing for Christ? He might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for there is nothing beyond death for him.

35 ¶ But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

I do not believe he is speaking of a physical resurrection at all. That is why he says to him that wold ask: "How are the dead raised up and with body do they come?" with "Thou fool".

He tells us that the body that was sewn IS NOT the body that is raised.

And just as not all flesh is the same flesh neither are all celestial bodies the same.

Paul likens the difference to the difference between the sun, the moon and the stars, even from one star to another.

And who are "the stars" in the book of Revelation? Are they not men, even "the angels of the churches"? And doesn't Jesus speak of us becoming "as the angels of God" when it comes to "the resurrection of the dead"?

It sounds to me as if Paul is saying that the resurrection body is as different from our present body as a wheat plant is different from a grain of wheat. Though a wheat plant differs greatly from a grain of wheat, they are nevertheless both wheat. Although the resurrection body differs greatly from our present mortal body, nevertheless both are bodies.

yes, of course, they are both bodies. I've not ever said otherwise.

51 ¶ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

Do you see that as only "a future event"?

We do not ALL SLEEP. Some have already passed from death unto life, right?

But I believe that we have all been changed for those in Christ are "a new creature". Right?

Note that it is THIS MORTAL that is "putting on" IMMORTALITY. According to Paul, we do this by being "clothed upon" - not by being "unclothed".

Does this not tell us not all people will die a physical death? (figuratively called "sleep" Even Jesus said of a girl who had died, "She is sleeping". But when others thought He was speaking of natural sleep, told them plainly, "She is dead").

That which IS SEEN bears witness to that which IS NOT SEEN. We are supposed to be looking upon those things which are nor seen (comparing spiritual things to spiritual). Right?

So what does PHYSICAL death tell us about the SPIRITUALLY dead?

Not all shall die. Some will be alive at His coming, but at that time they shall all be changed instantly in the sense that their mortal bodies will put on immortality. The immortal bodies into which those who are alive at His coming, shall be changed, are identical to the immortal bodies which the raised saints will possess when they become alive again at Jesus' second coming.

Jesus comes the second time unto them that look for Him. That "coming" (appearance, revelation, presence) takes place "within" as He is coming into His kingdom (which is "within").

When Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain not preventing those who sleep I believe he is talking about people who are physically alive, whether they be "alive" or "dead" (after a spiritual truth) and he is telling us not to mourn for those who sleep because 'the dead in Christ shall rise first".

They are not physically dead, though. They are among those who "remain" unto "the end".

Jesus said that in the time of harvest (He said the field were white already to harvest, even then) he would send forth his angels to reap (who did he send to reap?) telling them "gather ye together FIRST THE TARES". These are "the dead in Christ" of which Paul spoke. And the tares/dead are gathered/raised FIRST because "if one died for all, then were ALL DEAD".

It is only "the dead" who are in need of "resurrection". Right?

We (being dead, but also being baptized into HIS DEATH) were raised WITH HIM. But I believe that we each come to the knowledge of that truth and come to know THE POWER of HIS RESURRECTION "at His coming" (his being formed IN US).... "every man in his own order".

Christ, the FIRSTFRUIT (because HE IS OUR LIFE), THEN those who are His AT HIS COMING (His appearing IN THEM that believe), THEN cometh THE END.... when "the dead in Christ" shall be raised and those who are alive and remain shall be caught up in the air with them... and we shall ALL "ever be with the Lord" and God will be "all in all".

i don't see that as having anything to do with this earthly, natural body. They are not "the same" body. And I do not believe that we are "disembodied" when this natural body dies and begins to return to the dust from which it came. We have a spiritual body already reserved for us in the heavens.

[Aaron]

Hi Lefein,

Sorry for the (relatively) delayed response; I've been at the beach!

You wrote:

Yes. Very much so, and that is one thing in your post that I agreed with that made me consider taking it down so I could go this route. While I believe the human body, and even matter itself is important and beautiful for manifesting the invisible nature; I believe that nature continues or survives the body.

By "invisible nature" I assume you mean the "immortal soul." Because even I believe that there is a part of us that is "unseen" - I simply hold that this part of us refers to the "mental" aspect of our nature. But this aspect of our nature is not, I believe, something that can "survive the body," since I understand a functioning brain as being that which makes "mind" possible for a human being. When the brain dies, I think there is good reason to believe that all mental activity ceases.

You might say, that Liberty lives on even if the statue of it is destroyed. This is my view of it, which I had wanted to allude to in my removed post.

But when a statue is destroyed it no longer exists - all that exists is the matter by which it was constituted. And if we are constituted by our body and our body dies and is "destroyed," we no longer exist, either. We will, of course, continue to exist in a conceptual sense in the mind of God (just as we existed conceptually in God's mind before he brought us into actual existence), but in order for us to exist again in an actual sense we must be re-constituted.

Aaron:
This we disagree on. I believe that when the mortal body by which a human individual is constituted dies, the human individual necessarily dies as well and is "existentially dead." Otherwise, I don't think it would be true that the human individual was constituted by their mortal body. They would've instead been constituted by something other than their mortal body (e.g., what you refer to as an "immortal soul"). Or if they were partly constituted by a mortal body and partly constituted by something else that is immortal, then it would be the latter part of them which would survive the death of the body. But neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture leads me to believe that there exists some immortal part of us that is conscious after death in a disembodied state, and I can't believe in that which I have no good reason to believe exists.

Lefein:
This is where I believe that the "immortal soul" is constituted, or maintained rather; by the Immortal God. Without God sustaining everything, it would not survive. But that God sustains it, it does.

I do not think so much, atleast according to my understanding that the soul is immortal in and of itself, but that the imperishableness of it is by reason of God.

In an earlier post, I wrote:

If (as you say) "man is an 'immortal soul,'" then Adam was an "immortal soul" when God declared to him, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

So let's consider the following argument:

1) Every man is an "immortal soul."

2) "Adam" is a man.

3) Adam died and returned to the dust.

4) Therefore, an "immortal soul" died and returned to the dust.

We could also say:

1) Every man is an "immortal soul."

2) "Stephen" is a man.

3) Stephen died and was buried by devout men.

4) Therefore, an "immortal soul" died and was buried by devout men.

As we both agree that "Adam" and "Stephen" were both men, the only way to avoid the above conclusions would be to either deny premise 1 or 3. Either "Adam" and "Stephen" are not "immortal souls," or "Adam" did not die and return to the dust and "Stephen" did not die and was not buried.

Since you believe that we are immortal souls, is it your view that every individual who is said to have "died" in Scripture (and there are countless examples) did not, in fact, die? Because if every individual of which Scripture speaks is an immortal soul, how could they be said to "die?"

I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I'm not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we're immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we'd be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.

I believe this is not necessarily correct, because we exist in multiple dimensions; not just 3 or 4. I don't think being immaterial necessitates material embodiment in order to be localised. Take for example; Angelic beings.

I believe we exist in the same number of dimensions as the physical body by which we are constituted does, and I don't think you've yet given any evidence (Scriptural or otherwise) to the contrary. And where is your evidence that angelic beings are not embodied? Just because they are immortal and able to do things we can't do in our mortal state doesn't mean they aren't embodied. Since angelic beings exist, I believe their existence must either be localized or they must exist in every possible place. And if they don't exist in every possible place, then I can't conceive of them as being without some sort of body by which they are constituted and localized.

Aaron:
Neither my experience/observation nor my understanding of Scripture informs me that we have a "transcendent spiritual nature," if by "transcendent spiritual nature" you mean some part of us that survives the death of the body to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. Our identity is not merely "weakened" when that by which we are constituted dies; rather, I believe that when that by which we are constituted dies, we die. If we don't die when our body dies, then it means we weren't constituted by it, or that we were only partly constituted by it. But I think God would have to reveal this to us, and I don't think he has.

Lefein:
It is common belief, and was common belief then amongst both Jews, and Pagans. It is a human belief in general, just like belief in Deity.

I gave a link to a book that has more information that is relavent to this area; with both Biblical notions and Historic.

So beliefs that are most "common" and "general" among human beings are more likely to be true? If I'm not mistaken, a belief in either ECT or annihilation was the most "common" belief in Christ's day among both Jews and Pagans. And in Christ's day, a belief in multiple deities was more common in Christ's day than a belief in a single deity, unless you believe there were more Jews living in Christ's day than there were Pagans in the world.

That we continue to consciously exist in a disembodied state after we die is not something that my experience/observation leads me to believe. If I am to believe it, it would have to be revealed to me by God. And since I don't see it as having been revealed by God, I can't just take your word for it. The fact that it was a common belief among the Jews and Pagans in Christ's day doesn't lead me to believe that they were correct in their opinions. In fact, it would seem that the more the Jews learned from and emulated the Pagans around them, the further they strayed from God.

Aaron:
I'm confused by this. You say that being in the image of God is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. But rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God's personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. That is, any being who is rational, moral and self-aware would necessarily bear God's image by virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware. This is certainly consistent with what Scripture teaches regarding man's being made in the image of God, because it is his personhood (i.e., his being rational, moral and self-aware) which separates him from the other "living souls" made by God which are not said to bear God's image. I realize you want to include as part of our identity some sort of "transcendency" over space/matter/time, but for me that's like someone saying man must also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal in every possible sense, and unable to lie in order to bear God's image. And what's more, you believe that even animals have transcendent "immortal souls," so having an immortal soul cannot be that which distinguishes man from those creatures that do not bear God's image.

Lefein:
Only if you want to go to the full extreme. That man is has an evil nature, and does evil things, and often acts very irrational, immoral, and has too much self-awareness to the point of only caring for his own survival, reproduction, and passing on of genes I could go the other extreme and say that Man must not be made in the image of God at all; but is merely a very cunning animal.

I'm not sure what you mean by going "to the full extreme." The fact is that rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God's personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. Correct? By virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware we would necessarily bear the image of God, while non-human "living souls" would not. But if being in the image of God has to do with having a "transcendent, immortal soul," and all non-human animals have "transcendent living souls" and thus "go to heaven" when they die (as you seen to believe), then what, according to your view, elevates a human being over, say, a dog or a chimpanzee?

Also, the fact that man can be "evil" "immoral" or act "very irrational" presupposes rather than points away from the fact that he is made in the image of God, because to be "evil" or "immoral" is to violate one's moral nature and act in a way that is contrary to how one was created to live. One of my miniature dachshunds recently killed a baby duck that got into our yard (poor thing!), but it certainly wasn't "evil" or "immoral" for doing so. If my next-door neighbour were to do the same thing, however, I would definitely consider his actions "evil" "immoral" and "irrational." Why? Because I know he has a moral, rational nature, and I can't conceive of any reason why he might choose to brutally kill a baby duck that would not constitute a violation of his moral, rational nature.

Aaron:
And since you said previously that you didn't think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love, then it must be possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an "immortal soul." And if that's the case, then man doesn't require an "immortal soul" to do these things. Thinking rationally, being self-aware and having the capacity to love reflects that which is essential and fundamental to who God is, and if man can do these things without an "immortal soul," then man can reflect God's fundamental being without an "immortal soul." So why does man require an "immortal soul?" Is it just so that he can be "transcendent" in the sense that you think he should be "transcendent?" But I would argue that, according to your view, even creatures which do not bear God's image possess the same kind of "transcendency" that you think is so essential for man to possess.

Lefein:
I don't think it is impossible. But I don't believe God did it - because I believe he did something better.

I believe God only does what he thinks is best, and if God didn't do what you think he did, then it wouldn't be "better."

Lefein:
Do you believe it is impossible for God to give man a transcendent Individuality that survives the body, and will be re-embodied again? That God cannot sustain a disembodied, or even temporarily housed, by his presence, in his presence, and to have enough love and comfort (or correction) to amply requite that Individual, and then give a body that even more so expresses God's infinite and fathomless love?

Certainly, but if God has so created man I think he would've revealed it in Scripture. Since I don't think he has, I don't believe he's done it.

Is it better to go directly into being in the presence of God (for bliss or for correct) than to wait centuries (even if they are unpercieved) and recieve immediately the gift of his presence, as well as the gift of the Resurrection? Rather than just having it all (for some) thousands of years later?

One could argue that it would be "better" not to have been created mortal in any sense or to have to physically suffer and die at all. Who likes physical suffering and death and think it makes this present existence better than it otherwise would be? But since we are mortal, are able to physically suffer and do physically die (even though I'd prefer not to), then I'm inclined to believe that what seems "best" to us is not necessarily what seemed best to God when he created us and ordered our existence the way he did.

Moreover, Paul didn't seem to have any desire for the intermediate state between death and resurrection (what he calls being "naked" and "unclothed"); rather, his burden and longing was to "put on our heavenly dwelling" and be "further clothed." And if by "naked" and "unclothed" Paul meant "existentially alive in a disembodied state," then it would seem that, for Paul, it would be "better" to go directly into the presence of God in an embodied state. And according to my view, this is exactly what we experience (and, I believe, what Paul was anticipating): we die in an embodied state and our next conscious experience is in an embodied state. I think God ordered our existence in the way that he did for a benevolent reason: since we weren't created to exist without a body, God made sure that the intermediate state between death and resurrection would be one of unconsciousness so that our next conscious experience would be in a re-embodied state. It sure beats being conscious of our "nakedness."

As for other creatures who do not bear his image; I do believe they posess some kind of transcendency. "I believe there are pets in Heaven"

Well then it can't be because our pets lack a transcendent immortal soul that they don't bear God's image. May I suggest that these non-human "living souls" don't bear God's image because they lack certain fundamental personal attributes such as rational self-awareness and a moral nature?

Aaron:
I believe that when the individual dies he is dead until he is restored by God to life. His body begins to return to the dust from which it was made, and the "breath of life" or "spirit" (i.e., the animating force) "returns to God who gave it." Since this wasn't a conscious thing when God "gave it," I see no reason to believe it is a conscious thing when it "returns to God."

Lefein:
I believe that the Individual who at least is in Life (Christ), stays in Life (Christ). For those who are not in Life, I do not know for certain. But I believe they have some form of existence that is beyond the body.

I believe that the individual who is in Christ stays in Christ as well. But I deny that being "in Christ" entails that one remains existentially alive after physically dying just like I deny that it entails that one remains physically alive in an embodied state after physically dying. And I believe Scripture supports the latter just as much as it supports the former (which is to say it doesn't support it at all).

As for the spirit being conscious; God is Spirit, and he is conscious. The Holy Spirit is also conscious, as are angels, and spirits. Spirits are shown in an anthropomorphic light in various Bible passages.

2 Chronicles 18:18-21 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'

Well first, I'm of the opinion that the prophetic vision which God gave Micaiah was not necessarily a literal scene that actually transpired in heaven. The "lying spirit" of which Micaiah speaks is, I believe, a personification of the "spirit of error/falsehood" (1 John 4:6; cf. Ezekiel 13:3, 8). I don't think an actual, personal being went and became a "lying spirit in the mouth of all [Ahab's] prophets."

Second, let's assume that this "spirit" was an actual personal, conscious being. Does being called a "spirit" preclude having a body? No, because angels are called "spirits" (Heb 1:13-14) and yet it's evident that they have visible and tangible bodies of some sort (Gen 19:1-3, 16; 32:22-31; Hosea 12:4; Rev 22:8). Even Christ in his resurrection body is referred to as a "life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45). Being called a "spirit" does not mean one isn't constituted by a physical body.

"But" (it may be objected) "what about Luke 24:37-39?"

Luke 24:37-39 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Again, angelic beings are called "spirits," but they could be both touched and seen, just as Christ could be after his resurrection. So if by "spirit" Jesus meant an angelic being, then his allowing his disciples to see and touch his hands and feet would not have done much good, because angels have hands and feet (again, Jacob wrestled with one, and John fell at the "feet" of one). Even for those who do not think angels have physical bodies must acknowledge that angels can look and feel like they have physical bodies. Had Jacob been present along with the disciples when Jesus appeared to them and understood Jesus to be talking about angels, he could've replied, "Well the angel I wrestled with had hands and feet and certainly felt like he had flesh and bones!"

So what is the meaning of this passage? My understanding is that the word "spirit" is not being used in the sense of a higher angelic being, but rather to what many today would refer to as a "ghost." Understood in this sense, the disciples didn't think they were seeing the kind of supernatural being of which the OT speaks, but rather a dead person. If this is the case, then Christ was not sanctioning the meaning that they were ascribing to the word "spirit" at this time (which is probably meant to be understood as synonymous with the word phantasma used in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:49); he's simply telling them that a "spirit" (in the sense of a "ghost") does not have hands and feet and cannot be touched. It would be like me telling someone who mistakenly believes in the existence of vampires (and thought I was one), "See, a vampire doesn't have a reflection as you see that I have." For a person who from childhood has believed that vampires or ghosts exist, it wouldn't do much good to tell them that vampires or ghosts don't exist if they were frightened out of their wits because they thought they were in the presence of one. For one who is as "startled and frightened" as the disciples were, evidence that one isn't in the presence of what one mistakenly believes one is in the presence of would be more helpful - and of course, that's exactly what Christ does. Perhaps at another time (when the disciples were in a calmer state of mind), Jesus explained to them that the kind of "spirit" that they thought he was (i.e., a "ghost") exists only in man's imagination.

Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

For my understanding of "evil spirits," you can check out the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=610

In short, I believe the Jews understood "evil spirits" or "demons" to be the disembodied spirits of wicked men (i.e., malevolent ghosts), and that Christ and his apostles were simply using the language of the day to refer to the psychological maladies that demons/evil spirits were thought to be responsible for.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Is John telling his readers not to believe every disembodied being they encounter? If so, how often do you think his readers encountered and received messages from disembodied beings? It must have been pretty common for him to give such a warning. But I don't think the word "spirit" refers to disembodied beings at all. Rather, I believe John is using the figure of speech metonymy. The word "spirit" can refer to a person's mind, feelings or mental disposition, or the inward influence or principle that governs and motivates a person's actions. John is likely using the word to refer to those people who were professing to be prophets. IOW, he's telling his readers not to believe every prophet, but to test them. And why is this? "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world." The "spirits" in view here are living, embodied men who were either being guided by the "spirit of truth" or the "spirit of error."

That spirits in general show consciousness, or anthropomorphic qualities is enough for me to believe that our spirits are also of that same sort, that we are by some significant means our spirits.

Again, the word "spirit" can refer to the mental/emotional aspect of our nature, but that doesn't mean it's a separate entity or "immaterial substance" that exists in a disembodied, conscious state after death.

Aaron:
I agree that there is "more to the resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified." Not only will all physical maladies be healed when the dead are raised imperishable and the living changed, but I believe all moral maladies will be healed as well. But this "change" will not be a gradual process; Paul says it will happen "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

Lefein:
Even this is not what I mean by "more".

What do you mean by "more?"

Aaron
Well if when Christ said he was "the Resurrection" he was referring to what is to take place on the "last day" (John 6:39; 11:24) and at the "last trumpet," then he was referring to an "event" - and not a present, ongoing event which is taking placing gradually over a period of time, but a future event that is to going to take place (for lack of a better word) instantaneously. Or if he was talking about the kind of "resurrection" spoken of in John 5:24 (when he speaks of those who have "passed from death to life"), then this "resurrection" refers to something that may be spoken of as having taken place in the past for the believer (i.e., when, by faith, one is "born again" or "born from above"). Or he may have in view both kinds of "resurrections" (i.e., that which is to take place on the "last day"/at the "last trumpet," and that which takes place when one is "born again") - but even then, we're talking about two different "resurrection events," both of which Christ is responsible for. Either way, Jesus' title "the Resurrection" is highly appropriate. I'm inclined to understand Christ to be referring to the "last day" event when he refers to himself as "the Resurrection," and to the believer's spiritual "rebirth" (when one passes "from death to life" by faith) when he refers to himself as "the Life."

Lefein:
I don't think so, from context. When Lazarus' sister said; "I know he will rise again on the last day" Jesus said, and angrily so (he was indignant throughout the account) "I am the Resurrection and the Life! Do you believe this?" And then he raised Lazarus then and there, not in a glorified body we can assume, but none the less raised him up proving his power over Death.

I'm not sure where our disagreement is here, Lefein. Jesus proved his power over death by restoring a man to physical, embodied life. It's true that Lazarus wasn't raised in an immortal body, but he was restored to physical life nonetheless. I'm sure it's not your view that Jesus was demonstrating the full extent of his power over death by restoring a dead man to a mortal existence. And of course the sense in which Christ is "the resurrection" is much greater in meaning than his having the power to restore the dead to a mortal existence, for I believe he will raise all who die in Adam to an immortal, happy and holy existence. I cannot conceive of a "better resurrection" than this, so I'm perplexed why you would say the resurrection is "much more" than this.

Lefein:
Jesus is the Resurrection, and the Life "Today" as well as "Tomorrow". And he never changes.

I don't believe the Resurrection and the Life is just a thing for the future, I don't believe it can be because Jesus isn't just for the future.

Of course; Jesus is today bestowing spiritual "life" upon those who believe on him, and will be dong so for as long as he reigns. Jesus also has the power to restore those who have physically died to a mortal existence both today as well as tomorrow. Neither this kind of "resurrection" nor this kind of "life" is "just a thing for the future." But Jesus also has the power to raise those who have physically died to an immortal, sinless existence, and I don't believe he will exercise this power (which I believe is the full extent of his power over "death, the last enemy") until the "last day."

[Aaron]

I don't see problems with Greek Philosophy having influence, personally. The Greeks were already well on their way to believing in Monotheism by reason of the Philosophers; Plato for example was a monotheist if I recall correctly. I believe that God was working in the hearts of the Greeks well before the Christian era, as God is not just the God of the Jews, and the Jewish "mind and ideas" are not the corner market bearers on divine thought or truths, I believe God can inspire a heathen too, and did.

The Jews were monotheists long before Plato came around, so I hardly think this is an example of God "inspiring" heathen with divine truth. I'm more inclined to believe that apart from divine revelation man tends to believe in multiple gods, so Plato's monotheism should more properly be attributed to God's previously having revealed this to the Jewish people. It's certainly possible that God had been preparing the heathen so that they might be more receptive to what God had already revealed to the Jews. And how do you know Plato's beliefs regarding the immortality of the soul were more "inspired" than any other pagan belief that was not derived from the OT?

The Jews for the majority had also embraced this idea as well, and I don't believe that just because the idea is "Greek" that it is negated of its value as being "true".

The Jews had embraced a lot of pagan ideas by the time Christ came into the world, but if the ideas weren't derived from what God had revealed to them (and the ideas could only be derived from a divine source rather than experience/observation), then I don't see any reason to believe they were true. And I didn't say an idea is negated of its value as being "true" just because it's "Greek." But if it's contrary to what God has chosen to reveal to man, I don't think it's of any value whatsoever.

I do not see any instances myself where Christ stood up and said; "The Greeks are wrong!" in paraphrase, but commended certain Gentiles for their faith in fact. The idea of a soul apart form the body is not just Greek either, but spans most of Human-kind. From the Norse to the Babylonians, to the Egyptians to the far east. Even the Americas.

As far as I know Christ didn't stand up and say any pagan beliefs were wrong. But that doesn't mean he thought they were right, especially if the Law and the Prophets had nothing to say about it. And I'm very much aware that Gentiles throughout history have believed the dead to exist in a conscious disembodied state, but it was Plato who I believe made an already ancient pagan idea more intellectually acceptable and appealing.

I personally don't believe that the Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas, or that their ideas ultimately significantly mount over those of the early church Fathers, Greek or not who were Spirit filled themselves.

Nor do I believe the "Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas (etc.)." But to whatever extent that they believed what God chose to reveal to them and reverently/humbly refrained from embracing that which God had not revealed (but which only God could give any certain knowledge of), I believe their beliefs were far superior to those of the pagans or even the "early church Fathers" (who I see no reason to believe were more "Spirit-filled" than those Christians who denied that man has an "immortal soul").

But even the Jews had accepted this belief (apart from a heretical minority sect; the Sadducees) as truth, and Christ again I don't see having said anything against this belief, in a direct sense. Christ's silence on the matter, that would have been common thought, is telling to me that it isn't a gross error. He derided many of the Pharisees actions, and beliefs; but not their beliefs regarding the afterlife. The Sadducees however who did not belief in an afterlife, the Resurrection, or spirits, or angels; he spoke against directly in this area.

Is Christ's silence on the matter of reincarnation or transmigration also "telling" to you that this common belief wasn't and isn't a gross error? Christ also said nothing directly against the view that some will be annihilated or eternally miserable; is this also "telling" to you that this common belief wasn't and isn't a gross error?

The majority of the Jews, the Early Church fathers (and believers), and the majority of Humanity believed in a soul that passes on after physical death tells me that this is not just mere fancy.

How does this tell you that it is not just a mere fancy? Is something more likely to be true because it's been believed for a long time by a majority of people?

[Aaron]

Lefein:
When I say "just a body" what I am saying is that my existential person is not body-dependent.

In other words, they're immortal-soul dependent.

If my existence requires a body, then my existence is effectively (or at least practically) my embodiment, which isn't much of a stretch from saying "I am my body" for all practical purposes. If the spirit is just animating force, batteries, and the soul only comes about by an animation of a body; then the soul is effectively that body as it would be hardwired to it, dependent on it, and without which non-existent. It is not a mere strawman that I am attacking, but a concept being expressed here; that a person is body-dependent to exist.

I know from experience and observation that I have and am constituted by a body, but my experience and observation does not lead me to believe that I have what you call an "immortal soul." And unless God has revealed that we have an "immortal soul," I can't help but see it as existing only in one's imagination, and don't see why we should believe we are dependent on it rather than on our body to exist.

I believe that I am a spirit (a living 'immaterial' being, angels are spirits for example) first and foremost, my existence is not body-dependent; it is God-dependent.

I think we'd be "immortal-soul dependent" if we had immortal souls just as much as you think we would be "body-dependent" if we didn't. Your talk of being "God-dependent" vs. "body-dependent" is, I believe, little more than bombast.

I will not see Death, I will by no means die by reason of the age (never die as the KJV puts it). That I physically die is gain, as I go from the land of the living to Life Himself. Nothing, neither life nor death, (nor time) shall separate me from God.

It's true that physical death cannot separate you from the LOVE of God in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:38-39), but "death, the last enemy" will not be "destroyed" and "swallowed up in victory" until the dead are raised at the sounding of the last trumpet (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18). Not before. The "death" that you will not and cannot die as long as you believe on Christ and abide in him is the "death" of which Christ speaks in John 5:24, and of which Paul speaks in Eph 2:1. This "death" has nothing to do with whether or not one is conscious after physical death.

[Aaron]

Lefein:
But as for cessation of existence at death; which is what I am calling soulsleep here. I want to offer this mind experiment.

If there was a perfectly made clone of you, with memory intact and functioning; would that person (clone) be you? Or would you be that person (clone)?

It is our DNA, memory and consciousness/self-awareness (i.e., our first-person perspective) that makes us who we are. If a person is raised with your DNA, memory and first-person perspective after you die, then this "clone" (as you say) will be you, not someone else. It will be you who will have been restored to a living existence.

When Paul said that he had "a hope in God...that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15) he was referring to human persons - i.e., human individuals with DNA and memory and consciousness - being raised from the dead (i.e., restored to a living existence). It is not a person's body that is "just" or "unjust." It is the person who is "just" or "unjust." Thus, it is the person - the individual - who is being raised/restored to a living existence. And if it's the individual who is to be raised, then it's the individual who was dead and in need of being raised. But "immortal souls" don't die and aren't in need of being restored to a living existence. Thus, human persons/individuals aren't "immortal souls," nor are they constituted by "immortal souls."

And another thought; would you equate cessation of existence with perishing? According to the dictionary anyway, that is what is implied. I just want to make sure our terms are in sync here.

Like the word "salvation" or "saved," "perish" can mean different things in different contexts. Sometimes it means physical death/cessation of existence, sometimes it doesn't. It always seems to refer to some kind of loss or undesirable condition, though. In John 11:50 Caiaphas said, "It is better for you that one man should die for the people, not the the whole nation should perish." Here, the word "perish" (which is the same word used in John 3:16) probably means being overthrown by the Romans and thus ceasing to exist as a nation (cf. v. 48). In 1 Cor 15:18 "perished" stands in contrast to being raised from the dead, so I think we can infer that it means to remain dead (and thus to cease to exist) permanently.

[Aaron]

atHisfeet wrote:
If I said: "I am going to paint my bedroom blue AND green" would you somehow come to the conclusion that I was going to paint it only blue and then, sometime later (much later, perhaps), paint it green? If I said: "I am going to pick up Jane AND go to the mall" would you think that I am talking about two different trips? One in which I am going to pick up Jane and another one in which I am going to go to the mall (which may or may not even include Jane)? If not, then why should I believe that when Paul says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord" he means to imply something other than the first condition (being "absent from the body") RESULTING IN the second condition (being "present with the Lord")?

When Paul speaks of being "absent from the body and at home with the Lord," the "body" of which he speaks is our mortal body. To be "at home with the Lord" is to be with the Lord in the sense of which Paul speaks in 1 Thess 4:17 ("Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord"), and of which Christ speaks in John 14:3 ("And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also"). We will be both "absent from the body and at home with the Lord" when we are raised with our immortal body and caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 2 Cor 5:8 will be fulfilled when John 14:3 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 are fulfilled.

I don't believe that ANYONE who doesn't already believe in the doctrine of soul sleep would ever read this passage "that way". I certainly never read it that way until I had to start arguing "in favor of" the doctrine of soul sleep... which, unless read 'that way', this passage does NOT support.

Couldn't someone say in response, "I don't believe that ANYONE who doesn't already believe - or isn't already inclined to believe - that the dead are conscious would ever interpret this passage as you interpret it"?

Why would Paul have been torn between staying with those who needed him and going to sleep in the dust (for however long it took him to be resurrected from the dead), when he knew that it was more needful for them that he remain (that being the very reason he was torn) and he knew that as soon as he did depart wolves would come in among them not sparing the flock?

It wasn't being dead that Paul desired, but rather that future state of existence (i.e., post-resurrection) into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him.

[atHisfeet]

Aaron,

Do you understand the difference between “the earnest of the spirit” and “the adoption of sons”? Between "a child" and "a son"?

I ask because many seem to think that what believers receive this side of physical death is “the earnest of the spirit” (or “the firstfruits”), that this is all we can hope for in this life. But those that come forth in the first resurrection to rule and reign with Christ for “a thousand years” are (then) given “eternal life” (immortality during “the Kingdom age”). This is what they see as “the manifestation of the sons of God”.

However, the “earnest” or the “firstfruits” of the spirit is given to us “when we first believe” as this is when we are “sealed by the holy spirit of promise”, which is “the earnest of our inheritance UNTIL the redemption of the purchased possession”.


Eph 1:10-14 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


You seem to believe, as do many others, that we are not “redeemed” until “the resurrection of the dead”. And while that is true, you also believe that “the resurrection of the dead” is, for most of us, a postmortem event that involves the resurrection and/or change of our natural body unto a spiritual, immortal body.

However, the difference between those who have “the earnest of the spirit” and those who have received “the adoption of sons” is “Christ in you”.

At the time we are “sealed with the holy spirit of promise” (when we first believe) we are “babes”, who are “yet carnal”. We are not (yet) “the sons of God”, who are led by the spirit of God. We must “go on unto perfection” (God willing) by being “delivered of the child” (which is why Paul says that “the woman” – the spiritual equivalent to a “babe” or “child” is “saved in childbearing”).

The heir “AS LONG AS HE IS A CHILD differs nothing from A SERVANT”. Those who HAVE “the earnest of the spirit” ARE WAITING FOR “the adoption of sons”, for Christ (the Son) to be formed in them. This is what Paul WENT THROUGH and what he went through “again” with those whom he called “my little children” as they “travailed in birth”.

The reason that I bring this up is because Paul makes it very clear that “the adoption” (of sons) IS “the redemption of our body”


Rom 8:16-23 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the CHILDREN of God: And IF CHILDREN, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory WHICH SHALL BE REVEALED IN US. For THE EARNEST EXPECTATION of the creature WAITETH FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SONS OF GOD. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that THE WHOLE CREATION GROANETH AND TRAVAILETH IN PAIN TOGETHER UNTIL NOW. And NOT ONLY THEY, BUT OURSELVES ALSO, WHICH HAVE THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THE SPIRIT, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION, to wit, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY.


It is THIS MORTAL that is “putting on” IMMORTALITY! And we are doing it, not by being UNCLOTHED, but by being CLOTHED UPON. And THIS IS “death” being “swallowed up of life”.



2Co 4:3-5:10 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For WE PREACH NOT OURSELVES, BUT CHRIST JESUS THE LORD; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, HATH SHINED IN OUR HEARTS, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But WE HAVE THIS TREASURE IN EARTHEN VESSELS, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, THAT THE LIFE ALSO OF JESUS CHRIST MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST IN OUR BODY. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest IN OUR MORTAL FLESH. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus SHALL RAISE US UP ALSO by Jesus, AND SHALL PRESENT US WITH YOU. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but THOUGH OUR OUTWARD MAN PERISH, YET THE INWARD MAN IS RENEWED DAY BY DAY. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While WE LOOK NOT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN, BUT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN: for the things which are seen are TEMPORAL; but the things which are not seen are ETERNAL. For we know that IF OUR EARTHLY HOUSE of this tabernacle WERE DISSDOLVED, we HAVE a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal IN TH HEAVENS. For in this we groan, earnestly DESIRING TO BE CLOTHED UPON with our house which is from heaven: If so be that BEING CLOTHED we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: NOT FOR THAT WE SHOULD BE UNCLOTHED, BUT CLOTHED UPON, THAT MORTALITY MIGHT BE SWALLOWED UP OF LIFE. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us THE EARNEST OF THE SPIRIT. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight): We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Those who have “the earnest of the spirit” are still waiting for “the adoption of sons”. They are still waiting for CHRIST to be formed IN THEM, to be CLOTHED UPON with IMMORTALITY that MORTALITY might be SWALLOWED UP OF LIFE!

We have this treasure IN EARTHEN VESSELS and while THE OUTWARD MAN (and NATURAL BODY) is PERISHING, the INWARD MAN (and SPRITUAL BODY) is renewed day by day.

Though the first, natural, outward man IS DYING (dust returns to dust), the “second man” IS THE LORD FROM HEAVEN.

We are members of HIS BODY! Raised WITH HIM, who is THE HEAD of the body. And that treasure that we have “in earthen vessels” does not cease to exist just because the earthen vessel (born OF THE FLESH) dies. The inward man, born of the spirit and called by the name of Christ who is his head, CANNOT DIE.

That is why Jesus told the Jews that “in the resurrection” we become “as the angels of God” (those “angels”, those “stars in His right hand, ARE MEN) for “they cannot die anymore”. For they HAVE PASSED from death unto life. They are “children of the day” and “children OF THE RESURRECTION”.

That is why Jesus had to be made "a little lower than the angels" FOR THE SUFFERING OF DEATH.

[atHisfeet]

atHisfeet wrote:
If I said: "I am going to paint my bedroom blue AND green" would you somehow come to the conclusion that I was going to paint it only blue and then, sometime later (much later, perhaps), paint it green? If I said: "I am going to pick up Jane AND go to the mall" would you think that I am talking about two different trips? One in which I am going to pick up Jane and another one in which I am going to go to the mall (which may or may not even include Jane)? If not, then why should I believe that when Paul says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord" he means to imply something other than the first condition (being "absent from the body") RESULTING IN the second condition (being "present with the Lord")?

When Paul speaks of being "absent from the body and at home with the Lord," the "body" of which he speaks is our mortal body. To be "at home with the Lord" is to be with the Lord in the sense of which Paul speaks in 1 Thess 4:17 ("Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord"), and of which Christ speaks in John 14:3 ("And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also"). We will be both "absent from the body and at home with the Lord" when we are raised with our immortal body and caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 2 Cor 5:8 will be fulfilled when John 14:3 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 are fulfilled.

Yes, Paul is speaking about our mortal body. But, as we have discussed before, one need not be physically absent from their mortal body to be "absent from the body and present with the Lord". He only need walk in the spirit, rather than the flesh. I do not see all of the passages that you believe speak of the resurrection of the dead the same way that you do. I do not believe that one needs to be "unclothed" (die physically) in order to be "clothed upon" (put on immortality).

I don't believe that ANYONE who doesn't already believe in the doctrine of soul sleep would ever read this passage "that way". I certainly never read it that way until I had to start arguing "in favor of" the doctrine of soul sleep... which, unless read 'that way', this passage does NOT support.

Couldn't someone say in response, "I don't believe that ANYONE who doesn't already believe - or isn't already inclined to believe - that the dead are conscious would ever interpret this passage as you interpret it"?

No, I don't believe so. But I'd be more than happy to ask around.

How about you? Did you see that passage that way BEFORE coming to believe in soul sleep or only after (if there was a time that you did not believe that doctrine)?

Why would Paul have been torn between staying with those who needed him and going to sleep in the dust (for however long it took him to be resurrected from the dead), when he knew that it was more needful for them that he remain (that being the very reason he was torn) and he knew that as soon as he did depart wolves would come in among them not sparing the flock?

It wasn't being dead that Paul desired, but rather that future state of existence (i.e., post-resurrection) into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him.

You say this now, but when Paul says he was TORN between remaining in the flesh or departing (DESIRING TO DEPART) you claim that his "desire" WAS to die, physically - knowing his next concious experience would be with the Lord. Why do you think you can have it both ways?

Our desire is not to be unclothed but to be clothed upon... as it is THIS MORTAL BODY that "is quickened" by the spirit of God that dwells in it. It is not the flesh that is being quickened/saved, but the spirit. It has nothing to do with physical death or the natural body. The flesh is not counted for the seed.

Men ARE MORTAL. And it is THIS MORTAL that is groaning and travailing in birth waiting to be "delivered". That has always been the case and will continue to be the case until all have been redeemed... every man in his own order. That "redemption" (RESURRECTION) is wrought IN CHRIST. HE IS "the resurrection and the life" and because we were BURIED WITH HIM we were RAISED WITH HIM. We just do not all KNOW IT (know THE POWER of His resurrection) because WE SLEEP... UNTIL we hear His voice and AWAKE and ARISE from the dead.

The veil that stands between us and God is THE FLESH. Take the flesh OUT OF THE WAY and what remains to separate us from THE TRUTH?

[Aaron]

Hi atHisfeet,

You wrote:

Do you understand the difference between “the earnest of the spirit” and “the adoption of sons”? Between "a child" and "a son"?

My understanding is that "adoption" (in a NT sense) is the raising of one who is a son to the true position of a son, with all of its rights and privileges. That is, the "adoption" of God’s natural children (i.e., all who bear his divine image by virtue of creation) is their being elevated to the true position and status of a son or daughter of God. The redemption of our body (i.e., when our "lowly body" is fashioned anew to be like Christ's "glorious body" at Christ's coming to subject all things to himself - Phil 3:20-21) from the grave may be called our "adoption as sons" since, at this time, the ultimate purpose for which God created us will be fully realized. There is a sense in which believers have already received the "adoption as sons" (Gal 3:25-26; 4:1-7) and are "sons of God." But I believe there is an even greater sense in which all people - not just those who believe on Christ during this lifetime - will receive the "adoption as sons" at the resurrection of the dead. Believers are said to be "sons of God" now, but we will be "sons of God" in an even greater sense when we "cannot die anymore" and are made "equal to the angels." At this time, all who died in Adam will become "sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36). Not even believers are "sons of God" in this sense. But we (along with everyone else) will be when "death is swallowed up in victory."

I ask because many seem to think that what believers receive this side of physical death is “the earnest of the spirit” (or “the firstfruits”), that this is all we can hope for in this life. But those that come forth in the first resurrection to rule and reign with Christ for “a thousand years” are (then) given “eternal life” (immortality during “the Kingdom age”). This is what they see as “the manifestation of the sons of God”.

My understanding is that believers were "revealed" or "manifested" as "sons of God" at Christ's coming in his kingdom in 70 AD. At this time in redemptive history, those whose allegiance was to the risen Christ inherited the kingdom of God and were vindicated as the true people of God (cf. 1 Pet 5:1, 4) in contrast to the unbelieving Jews who so fiercely opposed them and the gospel that they proclaimed. It is in this sense that "the sons of God" (believers) were at this time "revealed," or unveiled as God's true people.

However, the “earnest” or the “firstfruits” of the spirit is given to us “when we first believe” as this is when we are “sealed by the holy spirit of promise”, which is “the earnest of our inheritance UNTIL the redemption of the purchased possession”.

You seem to believe, as do many others, that we are not “redeemed” until “the resurrection of the dead”. And while that is true, you also believe that “the resurrection of the dead” is, for most of us, a postmortem event that involves the resurrection and/or change of our natural body unto a spiritual, immortal body.

The ESV reads, "...who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." It's possible that Paul has in mind the resurrection of the dead in this verse, but my understanding is that the "inheritance" of which Paul speaks here is an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom, which believers received at Christ's coming in his kingdom in 70 AD (when the kingdom of God "came with power"). It was at this time that I believe those 1st century Christians to whom Paul wrote inherited the kingdom, to the praise of God's glory. But the Messianic kingdom (which was inherited by believers in 70 AD and may be entered into by believers today) is, I believe, going to end when Christ has subjected all people to himself and destroyed death, the last enemy. While I believe an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom is age-enduring and continues as long as believers are alive in this mortal state, it is not "eternal" in an absolute sense, and does not pertain to our post-mortem destiny.

However, the difference between those who have “the earnest of the spirit” and those who have received “the adoption of sons” is “Christ in you”.

I think those who had Christ in them when Paul wrote had the "the Spirit as a guarantee." The Spirit was, I believe, a guarantee of both their inheritance in the soon-to-be-established Messianic kingdom as well as of their being made immortal at the resurrection of the dead.

Those who have “the earnest of the spirit” are still waiting for “the adoption of sons”. They are still waiting for CHRIST to be formed IN THEM, to be CLOTHED UPON with IMMORTALITY that MORTALITY might be SWALLOWED UP OF LIFE!

Having Christ formed in us is, I believe, a different blessing from being clothed upon with immortality "so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life." I don't think being "sons of God, being children of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36) is the same as being "sons of God, through faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal 3:25-26). The latter takes place when we believe on Christ and are "born again," while the former will take when the "last trumpet" sounds, the dead are "raised imperishable" and those still alive are "changed."

We are members of HIS BODY! Raised WITH HIM, who is THE HEAD of the body. And that treasure that we have “in earthen vessels” does not cease to exist just because the earthen vessel (born OF THE FLESH) dies. The inward man, born of the spirit and called by the name of Christ who is his head, CANNOT DIE.

I believe the "inner nature" of which Paul speaks in 2 Cor 4:16 refers to our mind (the renewal of which causes us to be "transformed" - Rom 12:2), not to some immortal part of us that is conscious after death. I don't believe our mind had any existence until our brain was formed and began to function, our consciousness emerged, and we began to think. And I don't think our mind will exist after our brain dies and ceases to function - at least, not until we are restored to a living existence.

That is why Jesus told the Jews that “in the resurrection” we become “as the angels of God” (those “angels”, those “stars in His right hand, ARE MEN) for “they cannot die anymore”. For they HAVE PASSED from death unto life. They are “children of the day” and “children OF THE RESURRECTION”.

Where is your evidence that the "angels" of which Christ speaks in Luke 20:36 are descendents of Adam? Even if the "seven angels" of Rev 1:16 (i.e., the messengers of the seven churches) are men (i.e., the elders or overseers of the seven churches in Asia to which John wrote), it doesn't mean the angels/messengers of which Christ spoke in his response to the Sadducees are men (mortal or otherwise).

That is why Jesus had to be made "a little lower than the angels" FOR THE SUFFERING OF DEATH.

If the "angels" to which Christ was made " a little lower than" are men (i.e., descendents of Adam), are you saying that Jesus had to be made "a little lower than the descendents of Adam" for the suffering of death? I thought "angels" were contrasted with men rather than identified with them in the letter to the Hebrews (2:5-8; 14-16).

[atHisfeet]

Aaron,

I don’t know how much good it will do to keep going with this conversation, as we seem to be discussing the same things over and over again and we simply are not making any headway.

I recall the first time I came across some of your studies. It was a few years ago at another forum and I was so impressed with how well you laid out your case and that which happened in 70AD as the fulfillment of the prophesy of the second coming of Christ, but knew even then that you were not seeing all that there is to see – for that which is seen, which is given “as an example” or “type” is never the fulfillment of the truth, it is only a shadow of the truth.

And you seem content with the shadows.

It seems as if you are so entrenched in the natural, in the types and shadows, in those things that you can see, touch, and understand with your natural senses that you dismiss the spiritual truths to which they point (which are actually casting those shadows) as the “figures’ (ie “figurative”) of “types”, relegating the spiritual to an inferior position while you elevate the types/shadows to a far superior position.

It really seems, to me anyway, that you are paying homage to the shadows but missing the truth… ever so slightly, it might seem, but it’s like paying homage to the shadow of a car as if it is the real thing because it has the same “shape” and “looks” somewhat like what you believe a car should look like. But you can never sit in that car or drive that car if all you have of the car is it’s “shadow”. I want to scream LOOK UP AND SEE THE CAR! SIT IN IT! DRIVE IT! And maybe that sounds arrogant, as if I am claiming to have perfect vision when it comes to all things spiritual, but I’m not. Believe me! I simply cannot dismiss the spiritual in favor of the natural after it took me so long to see the spiritual in the first place. To me, that would feel like going backwards, as it’s looking on those things which are seen instead of those things that are not seen, which is the complete opposite of what we are told we need to do in order to “rightly divide” the word of truth. I simply do not see how I can “compare spiritual things with spiritual” by looking at what I see are “the types” rather than “the truth”.

But, until I decide whether or not to keep this conversation going, I will answer you last question about the angels (of God), as it relates to men and the resurrection of the dead.

These “angels” are not just “men”, they are men who have experienced “the resurrection of the dead”. It is they who become "as the angels of God in heaven”.

Paul was received “as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus”. (Gal 4:14)

These “angels” cannot die anymore because they “have passed” from death unto life, they are “children of the day”, even “children of the resurrection”. They are those of whom Paul spoke when He told Martha: “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. Believest thou this?”

You seem to believe that “the dead” mentioned here are corpses in physical graves and they will “live” after they are physically resurrected from their physical graves (or their souls are resurrected out of hades, where they are “sleeping”) and it is because (at this point) they have put on immortality by being resurrected into an immortal body that they "shall never die".

I don’t see it that way! As I see it, those who are “dead” IN SIN are the ones who are being “resurrected from the dead” BY FAITH (at His coming"... His "appearing" IN THEM) and, as such, THEY LIVE (having PASSED from death unto life) and they "that live and believe" shall "never die”… for the flesh is not being counted!

You see the natural application (physical death, physical graves and physical resurrection) are “the truth” and the spiritual application (spiritual death, the body of this death as our grave, and a spiritual resurrection through which we become “one body” through the spirit) as the “figure” (ie that which you nearly dismiss as secondary or “figurative”). i see it the other way around.

You think I have it backwards. I think you have it backwards. Because that which IS SEEN is TEMPORAL. Those things that ARE SEEN are the types/shadows. It is that which is NOT SEEN that is ETERNAL and what we are told we should be looking upon. So that is what I am looking upon.

All Blessings in Christ!
Christine

[Paidion]

Christine, I think your spiritualizing of Scripture is what belongs to shadowland. Aaron is taking scripture about the nature of man, as well as life itself in its vivid reality. He does not live in a dream world.

[Paidion]

[God] alone has immortality... I Timothy 6:16

[Lefein]

But do not forget, God is in us already, and we are already in God. That God alone has Immortality, is not only true but it is the highest proof that those who are in Him, and in whom He dwells never to forsake them; His sons and daughters; are immortal as He is immortal. The created child is given that clothing of Christ. The child returns to God, the spirit of who he or she is; the dust returns to the ground, the tabernacle dissolves, the spirit goes on to dwell in the mansions or rooms prepared for them in Christ's Father's house. And when Christ comes again and sets his dwelling place in the New, the mansions or rooms will also come with him and be made manifest in the Resurrection; the dwelling places raised up upon the Earth out of Heaven, like New Jerusalem descending out of Heaven after the old Earth with its old Jerusalem rolled away. The Resurrection consummates on the Earth what has already happened in the Father's house, because in the Resurrection the Earth becomes the Father's house.

I am immortal, because Immortality dwells in me, and I in Him. He will never forsake me, and I will not be removed from His hands. If He (Life, who is Immortality and the source of it being immortal) is in me and will never forsake me - then He will never exit from me. If I will not, cannot be removed from His hands; then I will not, cannot exit from Him. There can be therefore no touch of Death, or cessation of existence; no divorcement from Immortality or revocation of it, because it is impossible for Him and I to become divorced or revoked from one another.

To be dead as ceased to exist, is to be divorced for a moment from God. He would have left me, forsaken me, removed himself from within me; or I would have been plucked from His hands.

To cease to exist, would be to separate fully and wholly from the I AM; the one who is essentially Existence Himself, and the upholder of all that does exist. If Existence is in you, and upholds you; you will not cease to exist. If you cease to exist even for a moment; Existence is not in you, and certainly did not uphold you because you ceased to exist. That would be, to be forsaken or to be plucked from the hands of Existence by non-Existence, even if it were for a temporary moment - this is not acceptable, and it also goes against what is written, and it especially goes against what is written in the hearts of Christians who have hope;

"I will never; not for one second, by no means, for no moment, not once, not for the briefest span of time or timelessness - leave you, nor forsake you. I am the Resurrection and the Life, I am in you and you are in me. You will never be taken out of me, out of my hands, and I will never be taken out of you. You are a new creature in me, nothing will make you the old creature again. Nothing will separate you from my love, which is Me, for I am Love, as well as Life, and Resurrection. You are my temple, and I am your God, you are a branch and I am the vine. You are my bride and I am your groom; we are one. We will never be divorced apart. Not by death, nor life, nor powers, principalities, angels, or anything in Heaven, or on Earth, or under them both."

It is for this reason that I am inclined to believe what I believe.

Yes, God alone has immortality; but God is in me, and I am in him; and there will be no loss of either of us out of each other, there shall be no exit; we are one as father and son - for I am his child, and so immortality is in me now because God is in me now just as I am in him now and so I am immortal, being saturated and permeated by Immortality now. That my body dies, or sleeps, must mean I go on beyond it; being immortal by sake of being in him as he is in me first. Vivifying me and making me alive.

To tell me that I shall cease to exist, is to deny that God is in me at all, or that I am in God at all. It would be to deny the very Christianity of the Christian, the very childship of the child. I feel it would be to deny the very Godship of God, and worse; the very Fathership of the Father. Either of these are unacceptable to me.

There is more to the world than just this one. And there is more to the man than the thoughts in his brain and the vessel that carries it, and there is more to the existence of a man's soul than the existence of his crafted body. Man is a many layered, and complex being full of intricate nerves and muscles and bones, but this is not the full story of the depth of God's creation; and God forbid it be the maximum depth of His work. There is a soul that extends deeper than the soul's connectivity and workings in the body, and there extends even deeper the full scope of a wonderfully crafted soul and God-breathed spirit at the very heart of the child He made; and even deeper still is the very Holy Spirit vivifying it all, dwelling inside the very core of the man's core; the being of the man's being.

These depths in a man are like the Heaven amidst the Earth with God enthroned in the center of it all.

God made more than a natural vessel, self-aware, and rational. He made a spirit, whose being is the offspring of Himself, much littler, and smaller, but not devoid of that spirit and depth of being than He is infinitely full of.

God is Spirit, and so Man is spirit too, being the offspring of a Spirit, and the spirit returns back to God who embodied it.

[Lefein]

I think after this post I'm going to quit or something, replying to this took about two hours, and I am, in all honesty, weary of constructing replies to them of lengths sufficient to give answers to them. These posts are simply too long for me to deal with in regular (on going and prolonged) discussion.

---

By "invisible nature" I assume you mean the "immortal soul." Because even I believe that there is a part of us that is "unseen" - I simply hold that this part of us refers to the "mental" aspect of our nature. But this aspect of our nature is not, I believe, something that can "survive the body," since I understand a functioning brain as being that which makes "mind" possible for a human being. When the brain dies, I think there is good reason to believe that all mental activity ceases.

In the body it ceases, not in the being.

It is not all that different from the internet-computer interaction between the two of us. If your computer messed up, and your keyboard went on the fritz and all of the vowel keys on your keyboard stopped working; "n vrythng y typd ws lk ths" that does not mean that you yourself are incapable of linguistic function. Or an even better example; if your computer was destroyed...or you went on vacation to the beach...that does not mean you've ceased to exist, you've only ended your conversation for a time; until you come back that is, and resurrect the conversation.

But when a statue is destroyed it no longer exists - all that exists is the matter by which it was constituted. And if we are constituted by our body and our body dies and is "destroyed," we no longer exist, either. We will, of course, continue to exist in a conceptual sense in the mind of God (just as we existed conceptually in God's mind before he brought us into actual existence), but in order for us to exist again in an actual sense we must be re-constituted.

Liberty would not be destroyed just because a statue of Liberty is destroyed though.

There is more to the existence of a thing than existence of a thing which is its outer manifestation.

Since you believe that we are immortal souls, is it your view that every individual who is said to have "died" in Scripture (and there are countless examples) did not, in fact, die? Because if every individual of which Scripture speaks is an immortal soul, how could they be said to "die?"

Not in the sense that you would call "die". I don't think Death has ever implied cessation of existence.

They stopped being involved with the Land of the Living, that is a fact at least. They became separated from their family and friends in the Land of the Living; that also is a fact. Death implies many things, and many hurts happen because of Death - but I don't think any of it implies cessation of existence.

I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I'm not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we're immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we'd be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.

I don't think you quite understand the nature of a spirit.

Where is your evidence that if we are not embodied, we'd be omnipresent? I don't see how that follows.

I believe we exist in the same number of dimensions as the physical body by which we are constituted does, and I don't think you've yet given any evidence (Scriptural or otherwise) to the contrary. And where is your evidence that angelic beings are not embodied? Just because they are immortal and able to do things we can't do in our mortal state doesn't mean they aren't embodied. Since angelic beings exist, I believe their existence must either be localized or they must exist in every possible place. And if they don't exist in every possible place, then I can't conceive of them as being without some sort of body by which they are constituted and localized.

For sake of argument; if they are embodied in some sort of form - then we too would have this form after our physical bodies are passed. If there is no body for them, then I see no reason at all why we should not be able to exist as they do without one.

No Angel is omnipresent by the way, the devils certainly aren't.

As for scriptural evidence; are we not seated in Heavenly places? Are we not one with God? Is God not in us?

Where is your evidence that angels are embodied? Where is your evidence that without a body, they would be omnipresent?

So beliefs that are most "common" and "general" among human beings are more likely to be true? If I'm not mistaken, a belief in either ECT or annihilation was the most "common" belief in Christ's day among both Jews and Pagans. And in Christ's day, a belief in multiple deities was more common in Christ's day than a belief in a single deity, unless you believe there were more Jews living in Christ's day than there were Pagans in the world.

The majority of people believe that colours exist, does that make the colourblind correct in denying they do?

If Christ were not preparing a place for us to be with him where he is in Heaven, he would have told us so.

That we continue to consciously exist in a disembodied state after we die is not something that my experience/observation leads me to believe. If I am to believe it, it would have to be revealed to me by God. And since I don't see it as having been revealed by God, I can't just take your word for it. The fact that it was a common belief among the Jews and Pagans in Christ's day doesn't lead me to believe that they were correct in their opinions. In fact, it would seem that the more the Jews learned from and emulated the Pagans around them, the further they strayed from God.

I can't help that you only read Scripture through Materialist eyes. You've denied Samuel as being just a vision, or an outright demonic impersonation. Denied Elijah and Moses on the mount of Transfiguration as just being visions, and denied the Souls under the altar as being just symbolic. You would probably deny or explain away these verses as well;

And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
(1Kings 17:21-22)

And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
(Luke 8:54-55)

Evidence I provide for disembodied, or rather; post-mortem existence, you tend to explain away as being mere fancy, or else you deny it outright, or you reterm or redefine the terms, such as spirit or soul.

In other words any evidence I present tends to fall on hard ground, it doesn't grow.

I'm not sure what you mean by going "to the full extreme." The fact is that rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God's personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. Correct? By virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware we would necessarily bear the image of God, while non-human "living souls" would not. But if being in the image of God has to do with having a "transcendent, immortal soul," and all non-human animals have "transcendent living souls" and thus "go to heaven" when they die (as you seen to believe), then what, according to your view, elevates a human being over, say, a dog or a chimpanzee?

The human is God's child. The dog and ape is not.

Also, the fact that man can be "evil" "immoral" or act "very irrational" presupposes rather than points away from the fact that he is made in the image of God, because to be "evil" or "immoral" is to violate one's moral nature and act in a way that is contrary to how one was created to live. One of my miniature dachshunds recently killed a baby duck that got into our yard (poor thing!), but it certainly wasn't "evil" or "immoral" for doing so. If my next-door neighbour were to do the same thing, however, I would definitely consider his actions "evil" "immoral" and "irrational." Why? Because I know he has a moral, rational nature, and I can't conceive of any reason why he might choose to brutally kill a baby duck that would not constitute a violation of his moral, rational nature.

This is irrelevant however to my point. Just because man has a transcendent nature doesn't mean he has to be omnipotent (be God) in order to be in the image of God any more than being immoral strips him of that imageness at all.

Morality, self-awareness, rationality, these are not the only attributes of being made in God's image.

I believe God only does what he thinks is best, and if God didn't do what you think he did, then it wouldn't be "better."

It would be worse. God would be repugnant and completely alien to me.

I wouldn't call him God, I'd wonder where God went and why this imposter sits in his place.

Certainly, but if God has so created man I think he would've revealed it in Scripture. Since I don't think he has, I don't believe he's done it.

Again, I can't help your ability to see.

One could argue that it would be "better" not to have been created mortal in any sense or to have to physically suffer and die at all. Who likes physical suffering and death and think it makes this present existence better than it otherwise would be? But since we are mortal, are able to physically suffer and do physically die (even though I'd prefer not to), then I'm inclined to believe that what seems "best" to us is not necessarily what seemed best to God when he created us and ordered our existence the way he did.

To be in the presence of God, embodied or not; is never "not best". To be in the presence of God both embodied and not embodied - is to have the best at all times.

Moreover, Paul didn't seem to have any desire for the intermediate state between death and resurrection (what he calls being "naked" and "unclothed"); rather, his burden and longing was to "put on our heavenly dwelling" and be "further clothed." And if by "naked" and "unclothed" Paul meant "existentially alive in a disembodied state," then it would seem that, for Paul, it would be "better" to go directly into the presence of God in an embodied state. And according to my view, this is exactly what we experience (and, I believe, what Paul was anticipating): we die in an embodied state and our next conscious experience is in an embodied state. I think God ordered our existence in the way that he did for a benevolent reason: since we weren't created to exist without a body, God made sure that the intermediate state between death and resurrection would be one of unconsciousness so that our next conscious experience would be in a re-embodied state. It sure beats being conscious of our "nakedness."

You have no idea what it is even like. It feels to me almost as if you trust your embodiment for your comfort more than your God.

Well then it can't be because our pets lack a transcendent immortal soul that they don't bear God's image. May I suggest that these non-human "living souls" don't bear God's image because they lack certain fundamental personal attributes such as rational self-awareness and a moral nature?

I would say it is because they are not his children, but His pets also.

As for rationality, self-awareness, and morality; I am inclined to think even animals have them. Their intelligence might be lower, and they might not be civilised, but I don't think they are "dumb" or "blind" to themselves, or even to wrong when they are taught the difference.

Man was not "moral" in the Garden of Eden. They had no concept of it, they didn't know the difference between Good and Evil - it was only after partaking of the fruit which gave them their knowing via experiencing disobedience and learning the difference that Death even became an issue to begin with.

I believe that the individual who is in Christ stays in Christ as well. But I deny that being "in Christ" entails that one remains existentially alive after physically dying just like I deny that it entails that one remains physically alive in an embodied state after physically dying. And I believe Scripture supports the latter just as much as it supports the former (which is to say it doesn't support it at all).

Again with scripture, I can't help your sight. But for being "in Christ" not entailing existential continuance; that to me is to deny Life, and his power to give and maintain it; at the very least it lessens or diminishes it and confines it to bodily existence.

Well first, I'm of the opinion that the prophetic vision which God gave Micaiah was not necessarily a literal scene that actually transpired in heaven. The "lying spirit" of which Micaiah speaks is, I believe, a personification of the "spirit of error/falsehood" (1 John 4:6; cf. Ezekiel 13:3, 8). I don't think an actual, personal being went and became a "lying spirit in the mouth of all [Ahab's] prophets."

Evidence of my earlier point. You don't believe this spirit is a real spirit, and so you redefine the term and redefine the passage as fanciful.

Second, let's assume that this "spirit" was an actual personal, conscious being. Does being called a "spirit" preclude having a body? No, because angels are called "spirits" (Heb 1:13-14) and yet it's evident that they have visible and tangible bodies of some sort (Gen 19:1-3, 16; 32:22-31; Hosea 12:4; Rev 22:8). Even Christ in his resurrection body is referred to as a "life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45). Being called a "spirit" does not mean one isn't constituted by a physical body.

"But" (it may be objected) "what about Luke 24:37-39?"

I don't think you understand the nature of a spirit. And I myself never said that a "disembodied" person (regarding the body of dust) is "intangible".

Again, angelic beings are called "spirits," but they could be both touched and seen, just as Christ could be after his resurrection. So if by "spirit" Jesus meant an angelic being, then his allowing his disciples to see and touch his hands and feet would not have done much good, because angels have hands and feet (again, Jacob wrestled with one, and John fell at the "feet" of one). Even for those who do not think angels have physical bodies must acknowledge that angels can look and feel like they have physical bodies. Had Jacob been present along with the disciples when Jesus appeared to them and understood Jesus to be talking about angels, he could've replied, "Well the angel I wrestled with had hands and feet and certainly felt like he had flesh and bones!"

So what is the meaning of this passage? My understanding is that the word "spirit" is not being used in the sense of a higher angelic being, but rather to what many today would refer to as a "ghost." Understood in this sense, the disciples didn't think they were seeing the kind of supernatural being of which the OT speaks, but rather a dead person. If this is the case, then Christ was not sanctioning the meaning that they were ascribing to the word "spirit" at this time (which is probably meant to be understood as synonymous with the word phantasma used in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:49); he's simply telling them that a "spirit" (in the sense of a "ghost") does not have hands and feet and cannot be touched. It would be like me telling someone who mistakenly believes in the existence of vampires (and thought I was one), "See, a vampire doesn't have a reflection as you see that I have." For a person who from childhood has believed that vampires or ghosts exist, it wouldn't do much good to tell them that vampires or ghosts don't exist if they were frightened out of their wits because they thought they were in the presence of one. For one who is as "startled and frightened" as the disciples were, evidence that one isn't in the presence of what one mistakenly believes one is in the presence of would be more helpful - and of course, that's exactly what Christ does. Perhaps at another time (when the disciples were in a calmer state of mind), Jesus explained to them that the kind of "spirit" that they thought he was (i.e., a "ghost") exists only in man's imagination.

I think that is an incorrect interpretation caused by misunderstanding on your part.

In short, I believe the Jews understood "evil spirits" or "demons" to be the disembodied spirits of wicked men (i.e., malevolent ghosts), and that Christ and his apostles were simply using the language of the day to refer to the psychological maladies that demons/evil spirits were thought to be responsible for.

"All in their head"?

No demons or evil spirits at all? Just a broken brain?

Is John telling his readers not to believe every disembodied being they encounter? If so, how often do you think his readers encountered and received messages from disembodied beings?

As often as the Holy Spirit talks to you perhaps.

It must have been pretty common for him to give such a warning. But I don't think the word "spirit" refers to disembodied beings at all. Rather, I believe John is using the figure of speech metonymy. The word "spirit" can refer to a person's mind, feelings or mental disposition, or the inward influence or principle that governs and motivates a person's actions. John is likely using the word to refer to those people who were professing to be prophets. IOW, he's telling his readers not to believe every prophet, but to test them. And why is this? "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world." The "spirits" in view here are living, embodied men who were either being guided by the "spirit of truth" or the "spirit of error."

It also refers to an anthropomorphic entity. And most often that is the case when it is refered to as such.

Again, the word "spirit" can refer to the mental/emotional aspect of our nature, but that doesn't mean it's a separate entity or "immaterial substance" that exists in a disembodied, conscious state after death.

That it can refer to that, doesn't mean it isn't a person that continues on after death, conscious, and existent.

What do you mean by "more?"

Indescribable.

I'm not sure where our disagreement is here, Lefein. Jesus proved his power over death by restoring a man to physical, embodied life. It's true that Lazarus wasn't raised in an immortal body, but he was restored to physical life nonetheless. I'm sure it's not your view that Jesus was demonstrating the full extent of his power over death by restoring a dead man to a mortal existence. And of course the sense in which Christ is "the resurrection" is much greater in meaning than his having the power to restore the dead to a mortal existence, for I believe he will raise all who die in Adam to an immortal, happy and holy existence. I cannot conceive of a "better resurrection" than this, so I'm perplexed why you would say the resurrection is "much more" than this.

You aren't looking at the context of the conversation between Lazarus' sister and Jesus. The Resurrection is first and foremost; Jesus, before it is ever even the physical event of a bodily resurrection. The Life is Jesus, before it is ever the life in the resurrection.

The sister, like you seemingly, looks to the future event for Life (even if initiated by Jesus)...but not to Jesus Himself which you already have and he already has you.

That you are perplexed tells me you don't yet understand the scope of what it means to be a living being in Christ, who is Life. When I say "more" I mean that there is more to the Resurrection than just an immortal, embodied, happy holy existence some time far off in the future; some event. I am saying that it is a whole universe of Life and Livingness to be tapped and enjoyed even in the now that ever increases through event, to event, to event, to Resurrection and beyond; things we cannot imagine.

In other words; there is more to the person's ability to exist than the existence of the body; there is more the the Resurrection than the event. There is more to God than what we see.

Of course; Jesus is today bestowing spiritual "life" upon those who believe on him, and will be dong so for as long as he reigns. Jesus also has the power to restore those who have physically died to a mortal existence both today as well as tomorrow. Neither this kind of "resurrection" nor this kind of "life" is "just a thing for the future." But Jesus also has the power to raise those who have physically died to an immortal, sinless existence, and I don't believe he will exercise this power (which I believe is the full extent of his power over "death, the last enemy") until the "last day."

I believe better, he's killing Death even as we speak by usurping it with Life; with Himself, and on the Last Day when every last person is fully enveloped and permeated with Life, with God; and God is all in all - Death will then be defeated, having been consumed by the all consuming fire.

The Jews were monotheists long before Plato came around, so I hardly think this is an example of God "inspiring" heathen with divine truth. I'm more inclined to believe that apart from divine revelation man tends to believe in multiple gods, so Plato's monotheism should more properly be attributed to God's previously having revealed this to the Jewish people. It's certainly possible that God had been preparing the heathen so that they might be more receptive to what God had already revealed to the Jews. And how do you know Plato's beliefs regarding the immortality of the soul were more "inspired" than any other pagan belief that was not derived from the OT?

The same way you know that pi is 3.14 even though God doesn't say so in the Bible.

The Jews had embraced a lot of pagan ideas by the time Christ came into the world, but if the ideas weren't derived from what God had revealed to them (and the ideas could only be derived from a divine source rather than experience/observation), then I don't see any reason to believe they were true. And I didn't say an idea is negated of its value as being "true" just because it's "Greek." But if it's contrary to what God has chosen to reveal to man, I don't think it's of any value whatsoever.

Before Babylon, the Hebrews believed Yahweh had a wife named Asherah. Before Moses, the Hebrews worshiped Egyptian gods (and a golden calf when Moses was around). The Jews have never had a pure religion, even in Jacob's day.

I don't consider ancient theology to be pure simply because it is ancient; even if I saw "soulsleep" in the ancient theologies of the Jews. Which I do not.

As far as I know Christ didn't stand up and say any pagan beliefs were wrong. But that doesn't mean he thought they were right, especially if the Law and the Prophets had nothing to say about it. And I'm very much aware that Gentiles throughout history have believed the dead to exist in a conscious disembodied state, but it was Plato who I believe made an already ancient pagan idea more intellectually acceptable and appealing.

If it where a falsehood that there was no afterlife (aside from a physical resurrection of the body); I am absolutely certain Christ would have made it a point to tell the Pharisees their error in this belief they held. He called out most of their other beliefs, but never this one. I take that as something to be considered, at least on my part.

Nor do I believe the "Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas (etc.)." But to whatever extent that they believed what God chose to reveal to them and reverently/humbly refrained from embracing that which God had not revealed (but which only God could give any certain knowledge of), I believe their beliefs were far superior to those of the pagans or even the "early church Fathers" (who I see no reason to believe were more "Spirit-filled" than those Christians who denied that man has an "immortal soul").

Those Christians being the very vast minority, and in a very negative way.

Is Christ's silence on the matter of reincarnation or transmigration also "telling" to you that this common belief wasn't and isn't a gross error? Christ also said nothing directly against the view that some will be annihilated or eternally miserable; is this also "telling" to you that this common belief wasn't and isn't a gross error?

I honestly don't care much either way, I don't believe in reincarnation and consider it just as gross and horrid as soulsleep, and ETC, and annihilation.

Christ never denies the thing I consider beautiful, therefore I see no reason why "I" should, unless given sufficient reason to do so - and that would be to eat dirt over bread in my opinion.

How does this tell you that it is not just a mere fancy? Is something more likely to be true because it's been believed for a long time by a majority of people?

The same way that Atheists aren't right just because they use the same expression of logic as you are right now to deny the existence of God.

"If the majority believe a thing, and are wrong in some cases, then they are wrong in all cases; the minority being right in some cases, are right in all cases"

Or to put it aptly;

"The majority believe this, I don't because the majority are often wrong"

In other words, they're immortal-soul dependent.

On God's Immortal Soul yes.

I know from experience and observation that I have and am constituted by a body, but my experience and observation does not lead me to believe that I have what you call an "immortal soul." And unless God has revealed that we have an "immortal soul," I can't help but see it as existing only in one's imagination, and don't see why we should believe we are dependent on it rather than on our body to exist.

I can't help your experience, or your ability to see.

I think we'd be "immortal-soul dependent" if we had immortal souls just as much as you think we would be "body-dependent" if we didn't. Your talk of being "God-dependent" vs. "body-dependent" is, I believe, little more than bombast.

Your logic is faulty in not understanding what I mean by "God-dependent" if you think it is just bombast. Your logic is faulty anyway, considering that you're arguing against what boils down to this (my argument);

"An Existence is dependent on its Existence to Exist"

It's true that physical death cannot separate you from the LOVE of God in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:38-39), but "death, the last enemy" will not be "destroyed" and "swallowed up in victory" until the dead are raised at the sounding of the last trumpet (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18). Not before. The "death" that you will not and cannot die as long as you believe on Christ and abide in him is the "death" of which Christ speaks in John 5:24, and of which Paul speaks in Eph 2:1. This "death" has nothing to do with whether or not one is conscious after physical death.

This isn't an internally consistent statement.

Your post translates to this;

"Nothing will ever separate you from God, but you will cease to exist for a time (which is to be separated from God)"

This statement alone voids the consistency before it even reaches "And then you'll be resurrected and no longer separated from God".

Cessation of existence is the very highest form of being separated from God. That it is eternal or temporary is irrelevant to the fact that separation occurred between the Existent God and his existing child, by reason of the child ceasing to exist.

It is our DNA, memory and consciousness/self-awareness (i.e., our first-person perspective) that makes us who we are. If a person is raised with your DNA, memory and first-person perspective after you die, then this "clone" (as you say) will be you, not someone else. It will be you who will have been restored to a living existence.

I didn't say the clone was a clone of me after I died when I asked the question. If the clone stands beside me; is he me? Am I him?

Unfortunately, all this response on your part does is tell me that "I am the sum of my parts and faculties", which only goes back to the machine, construct issue.

When Paul said that he had "a hope in God...that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15) he was referring to human persons - i.e., human individuals with DNA and memory and consciousness - being raised from the dead (i.e., restored to a living existence). It is not a person's body that is "just" or "unjust." It is the person who is "just" or "unjust." Thus, it is the person - the individual - who is being raised/restored to a living existence. And if it's the individual who is to be raised, then it's the individual who was dead and in need of being raised. But "immortal souls" don't die and aren't in need of being restored to a living existence. Thus, human persons/individuals aren't "immortal souls," nor are they constituted by "immortal souls."

No, they have their being in God, their transcendent nature is dependent on God to exist, not their bodies.

[atHisfeet]

Christine, I think your spiritualizing of Scripture is what belongs to shadowland. Aaron is taking scripture about the nature of man, as well as life itself in its vivid reality. He does not live in a dream world.

It's called the kingdom of God. And while it is invisible it is much more than just a dream.

[atHisfeet]

[God] alone has immortality... I Timothy 6:16

AMEN!! And as a part of the body of Christ we have put it on!