The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The physical resurrection and our five senses.

IMO… primarily in context, it refers to Israel, BUT that doesn’t preclude others and I think steve7150 above makes an adequate case for this, etc.

I think he means the Zombies :exclamation: :laughing:

Let’s read about “the God of the living” in context:

Matthew 22 (NKJV)

As you can see, Jesus said these words about God being the God of the living in response to the Sadducees who believed there was no resurrection. He prefixed this statement with the words “But concerning the resurrection of the dead…” If you believe the words of Jesus that He will raise the dead on the last day, then in uttering the words, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” Jesus must have been referring to Him being the God of the living after they would be raised to life again.

However, maybe you think the resurrection is past already, as Hymenaeus and Philetus taught in Paul’s day, and against whom Paul warned . Those who hold that belief, also hold that when a person dies they immediately go to heaven and that is their resurrection.

Paul’s statement does not imply that he was saying that he would be with Christ immediately upon his departure, but that as far as Paul personally was concerned, it would be immediate—and so with the rest of us. Perhaps after your death and you find yourself immediately with the Lord, if you see me, you might say, “See, Don, I was right. We went directly into the next life to be with Christ!” You would be totally unaware of a possible time span of 1000 years or more between your death and resurrection.

I experienced a bit of that when I received prostate surgery in 2007. I was lying on a hospital bed and glanced at the clock. It was 1 P.M. Then I thought I heard a little tinkling sound. I glanced at the clock again; it was 3:30. Two and a half hours has passed with the surgery complete. But from my point of view, NOTHING had occurred between 1:00 and 3:30. I went instantaneously from my state at 1 o’clock to my state at 3:30.

Paul’s statement does not imply that he was saying that he would be with Christ immediately upon his departure, but that as far as Paul personally was concerned, it would be immediate—and so with the rest of us.

I agree Paul didn’t imply anything because he flatly stated he would be with the Lord upon his death which is the only conceivable explanation for him saying “to die is gain.” Laying in a grave for years/decades/centuries is not a gain, only being with the Lord is gain.

No, Steve. He didn’t flatly state that. He flatly stated that “to die is gain.”

No, Steve. It in not the only conceivable explanation. It is quite conceivable that if Jesus is going to raise from the dead on the last day as He clearly stated four times as recorded in John 6: 39,40,44, and 54, then to die is gain.

Right Steve. But no one suggests that Paul’s gain is lying in a grave for an extended period of time. Rather, his gain after death is being with the Lord Jesus when He raises him up at the last day. For Paul it will be just as if it were instantaneous, for after his death, the first thing of which he will be conscious is living again in the resurrection.

We are conscious only when we live. You and I have no consciousness or memories of any earthly events prior to our birth, since we were not alive. Similarly, we will will have no consciousness after death—until the Lord Jesus makes us alive again when He raises us up from death on the last day.

If Paul had believed that he would go to be with the Lord at his death, why did he indicate that our only hope is in our resurrection?—when Jesus raises us again at the last day.

With these words, did Paul not indicate that if we are not raised from death at the last day, we might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for there will be nothing beyond this present life? Surely Paul would not have said that if he had believed that we’ll all go to heaven immediately at death.

Greek writers used no commas or periods. So, as I see it (Steve correctly predicted that I’d bring this up), Jesus’ may have actually said, “I’m telling you today, you will be with me in paradise.” Even in our day, I’ve heard people beginning a sentence with, “I’m telling you right now…”

Okay, so when you say it does not preclude others are you saying??.. And your comment ‘obviously nodding to Steve.’

What God did for the world (others) He did first for Israel… that is the pattern of Scripture. With Israel redeemed the world was reconciled.

This Don is a loose and disingenuous handling of the text, errantly pillorying… “Those who hold that belief, also hold that when a person dies they immediately go to heaven…” as though such a belief is in the dubious company of the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus. And yet any belief in the immediacy of resurrection, appears NOWHERE IN THAT TEXT and yet you impugn via guilt-by-association anyone who differs from your own suspect soul-sleep type of argument. I suggest Hymenaeus and Philetus understood perfectly the nature of the resurrection… WHAT THEY HAD WRONG was the timing.

Looking purely at the LOGIC of the situation. Had ‘the resurrection’ been the physical event so typical of futurism… with now open graves and tombs, with previously deceased now alive and walking around, then both Hymenaeus and Philetus could simply have pointed to the OBVIOUS LITERAL evidence — yet they DIDN’T because they understood the nature of the resurrection was NOT an earth destroying, time ending, history terminating event.

Again, ask the bleeding obvious… HOW were Hymenaeus and Philetus able to “overthrow the faith of someIF the expectant resurrection was a physical event as every brand of futurism teaches? Such a thing would have been self-evident with everything physically changed — a remade world, people popping up through open graves, and no more physical death. IF that’s what was expected they would have duly pointed to it.

Always trust Paul… and a correct reading of the Greek: “If the dead are not being raised…” — the word ‘raised’ <ἐγείρονται> egeirontai is in the PRESENT TENSE, an action as occurring at THAT TIME with no one waiting eons in death. When He ascended on high He took captivity, i.e., death, and those bound in it, captive…

Hi qaz, you wrote:
Steve, as a preterist, I too believe we will see Jesus upon biological death. What’s puzzling is that Jesus told the man on the cross that tonight they’d be together in paradise, which was BEFORE the preterist eschaton.

Greek writers used no commas or periods. So, as I see it (Steve correctly predicted that I’d bring this up), Jesus’ may have actually said, “I’m telling you today, you will be with me in paradise.” Even in our day, I’ve heard people beginning a sentence with, "I’m telling you right now…

Except Jesus used the same phrase “Truly i say to you” numerous other times to emphasize something he was about to say. If i were a Preterist i might interpret this as a foretaste of something greater to come.

So which dead people “were being raised” at the time Paul wrote this?

Yes, doubtless Hymenaeus and Philetus did not believe in a literal resurrection, and claiming that their “spiritual resurrection” had already occurred, they destroyed the faith of some—destroyed their expectation of the literal resurrection to come.

It seems to me that Hymenaeus and Philetus’ concept of the resurrection was much the same as yours, Davo, that Christ’s resurrection is a past event, and resulted in everybody being raised to life at death, by going immediately to heaven. Or do you think they had to wait until 70 A.D.?

If this is not your position on the resurrection, please explain you position in detail, and your readers might get more understanding from it than from merely reading your attacks on my position.

The bizarre thing here is… you are being serious with “your attacks on my position” even though you do the very same thing yet bleat like a sheep when called on it. I’ve noticed this is your MO when seeking to avoid dealing with other cogent arguments raised.

I do indeed acknowledge “that Christ’s resurrection is a past event” — what are you so finding peculiar about that? :unamused:

Care to explain HOW do you see THAT i.e., that “everybody being raised to life at death, by going immediately to heaven” SOMEHOW resulted in the overthrowing of the faith of some?
Note: it was their faith NOT as you again errantly twist… “their expectation” being overthrown.

When you contrast and compare Paul’s severe angst towards and against those who were perverting the gospel of grace it becomes clear that the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus were in this camp of the Judaisers… mixing law with grace, insisting on law-observance for true salvation. Check out all these texts showing how much of a problem reversion was at that time in overthrowing the faith of someActs 15:1, 5, 10, 24; Gal 2:4; 5:12; 1Jn 4:1; 2:19 ← make sure you read these texts.

As I understand it… from the Ascension (Acts 1:9; Lk 24:51; Mk 16:19) forward, when Jesus, having come to ‘the Ancient of Days’ to receive a kingdom (Lk 19:12) i.e., being given all authority (Dan 7:13-14; Mt 28:18), He summarily “led captivity captive” (Eph 4:8) having thus taken “the keys of Hades and of Death” (Rev 1:18) and set ALL those bound therein at liberty. Then in finality at the Parousia, with Death and Hades having given up the dead, such was then cast into the lake of fire… the second death (Rev 20:13-14).

Thanks davo, Kind of sounds like good news :laughing: :laughing:

I think you know that I wasn’t questioning Christ’s resurrection as a past event. Why didn’t you quote it in context? I think I know. You wanted to pick out something to make my statement appear ludicrous. Go ahead. Keep doing it. Don’t answer my questions. However now I see that I should have written it differently to avoid ambiguity.

REVISED VERSION:

I see no Godly purpose in continuing this exchange with you. It has sunk to the level of bickering, rather than being a mutual search for truth and reality. Your attitude seems to be, “I know the truth and everyone who doesn’t see things my way, is stupid.” I want to learn, and I want to exchange thoughts with people who want to learn. I leave those who already know everything to their own devices.

Just some commentary here. And this is not judging either Davo or Paidion. I have seen some on this forum, as thinking they have the whole truth. And everyone else is false. Well:

That’s like saying you know more than all the great philosophers - both historical and contemporary.
And you know more than all the great theologians - both historical and contemporary.
And you know more than all the great linguists - both historical and contemporary

Well, if you do - guess what? I should be able to recognized you, as a well-known and well-respected, author, theologian, philosopher, etc.

Personally, I like to see how those with unusual viewpoints see things. Like:

How does someone embracing hard theological determinism see things?
How does someone embracing full preterism see things?
How does a Christian Scientist see things?
Etc.

And I also look for two other things:

Do they present their position, in a logical and coherent manner?
Do they handle any and all objections well?

Well, I might not agree with you. I might think your position is absurd. But I can respect you. :smiley:

How well do you defend your position :question:

My ONLY reason for partially quoting ANYONE’S words is the show directly WHAT I’m about to answer to… THAT in itself is an attempt to deal with any ambiguity, i.e., being specific. I don’t fear the context BECAUSE the context is ALREADY there in plain print on the screen for all to see; which is what I’m working off, and anyone can see IF I’ve deliberately mishandled your thoughts AS PRESENTED — and anyone reading my post above where I dealt with your fuller quote in two halves can see I didn’t mishandle your words.

Don… it would have been helpful had you written this the first time, as the only part of the original I didn’t comment on was the last sentence as it seemed rather redundant given what had come before. But I can see now what you were maybe trying to ask; not dissimilar then to qaz’s last question above. So I will tease that out a little further for anyone else interested.

Well not completely. Clearly as I suggest they understood the nature of the resurrection was NOT an earth-shattering time-ending event for the reasons already given, BUT as to the timing thereof they were completely off base, and THAT reflects some other errant belief etc. But having said that… isn’t that just like the rest of us in some respect in that we can all have part of the picture on some point and yet not have the whole picture in clear view — well I’ve learnt this is true for me at least.

As I understand it… this is a general reference to the finality of what was beginning to occur through Jesus’ ministry and that of the apostles to follow (Heb 2:3b), i.e., the rising of many in Israel to newness of LIFE, that is, covenantal renewal. IF one is going to rely purely on a strict literal approach on this passage then it presents some difficulty. For example Jesus said… “He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.” Taken strictly literally this appears somewhat as a contradiction, BUT everyone cuts Jesus some slack acknowledging there are different aspects of resurrection life in view and WHAT that entailed in that age.

You will notice from the text that “on the last day” are actually Martha’s words not Jesus’ — he doesn’t dispute them (they must have had some legitimacy) but rather points to a greater reality, i.e., “I am the resurrection and the life.” Again not dissimilar to Jesus’ handling of the disciples’ fleshly nationalist expectation behind their query of Jesus in Acts 1:6 where he ignores such and speaks to the greater reality about to fall, i.e., Pentecost; where after all such fleshly notions disappeared.

This week, I had a problem with my Hyundai. It wouldn’t go over 20 miles an hour, after I left the 7 Eleven store. Well, I was only 3 miles, from my favorite mechanic. And I didn’t want to call AAA. And wait an hour or so, for a tow. I got to the shop, which is run by a Christian fellow I know. The technician took a code reading and it had to do with the accelerator. He called me the next day. The problem was fixed. The solution? The accelerator wasn’t getting the right message, from the computer. He reprogrammed the computer. Then everything worked, like a charm. Sometimes we have to reprogram the computer (AKA our mind and brain), for things to work right.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/8689bc08aabde256e92b9f71a85dede8/tumblr_ndjptlgLkK1qlj519o1_400.gif

I shared this before elsewhere. But I’ll share it again.

Take my Protestant Christian mom - now deceased at 92.5 - having the lifelong gift of prophesy. She never “advertised”, “charged money”, nor “sold tickets”, but she was always right. And she told me as a Boy Scout teenager, to take an umbrella to a parade. None of the weather TV or radio services forecast rain. And I got ribbed by fellow scouts. Until there was a downpour, in the middle of the parade. And I was the only one - with an umbrella. No matter what the deterministic variables were, she saw the final outcome, and warned me about it. I believed her and took an umbrella (while not believing the scientific weather experts). How does her gift of prophesy, fit into a deterministic model? Was I avoiding determinism, by bringing an umbrella?

Suppose you asked God for wisdom, like he requests you do in scripture. And it develops into a full blown intuition, which is always right. Or you are born with the gift - like my mom was. If you follow it and avoid an unpleasantness outcome, is that circumventing determinism?

And I further balance open theism and synergy, against the premise - that thoughts and feelings can influence reality. A position that folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox, have demonstrated in their lives. I just don’t buy into their explanations.

Most likely, those with intuition, psychic ability and the gift of prophesy, are seeing the most probable occurrence.

I like to call my logical constructs frameworks. They are how I try to see reality. I might follow the epistemological framework of I. Kant. The theological framework of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholics Richard Bohr and Thomas Merton, and Protestant evangelist Joel Osteen.

But not everything I’ve seen, fits neatly into the framework. Like what I have seen with:

My mom, with her gift of prophesy
The Roman Catholic priest, with the gift of healing and hearing God speak
The Native American medicine men and women
The saints from the East, I hung around with
Etc.

Like those of the Sufi student, explaining things away in Talks with a Sufi Shaykh.

Calvinists would say, I’m following the wrong path. Roman Catholic Richard Rohr, would say I’m following the right path.

At the end of time, God might say my frameworks are incorrect. Or they are incomplete. But they work for me, and I run with them. But not everything I have seen and experienced, fits neatly into them. Much like you find, with astrophysics and quantum mechanics.

.

I can’t give a definitive answer because I just don’t know… the Bible is silent on a lot of this stuff. I suspect there might be some latitude with regards to Jesus’ reference to ‘Paradise’, and I assume the thief postmortem with Jesus had some semblance of consciousness — Jesus seemed to have been conscious postmortem based on the likes of 1Pet 3:19; 4:6 etc, so why not the thief who Jesus was favourably disposed to with said promise of seemingly immediate and presumably recognisable company.

Some objecting to this might dismiss this by claiming “the spirits in prison” refers not to men but angels, appealing to 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 1:6. That could carry some weight BUT <ἄγγελος> aggelos “angel” can also be translated “messenger” — a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God; examples, Mal 2:7 LXX; Rev 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 et al. Not only that, but the writer to the Hebrews in speaking of believers addresses them as… “the spirits of just men made perfectHeb 12:23. But apart from that I think the above reference in 1Pet 4:6 is reasonably succinct.

This, spiritually speaking, has been the hardest time of my life with one exception: When I rejected the doctrine of Hell. Nothing had me so scared than when I started to question the hideous doctrine of an eternal Auschwitz. That disgusting and vile concept of God should never be accepted. One who accepts is more likely to act unloving to his fellows… After all, if God does it, then it might be right!

For quite some time I have taken on the label of Christian Agnostic. I know it is a silly term, truly, I know this. But what it meant to convey was this: I have no idea who Jesus really is, if he even exists. I believe in a God, at least a creator, but I am not sure I know anything about him. He never told me anything. As I mentioned in my initial post, God has given us five senses and never does God engage us at our level. It is always some ‘secret, still small voice’… Yeah, AKA, your imagination. The one who you hear and think “What, did I think that? Is that me talking to myself?” Yes, I am afraid it is. Where is the evidence to suggest it is God? I don’t see it.

I have basically become a doubting Thomas. But I don’t see this as apostasy and the reason why is because my choice was never fully informed to being with. Indeed, it will never be fully informed, especially as we creatures and ones who learn. As new light, circumstances and life experiences have started to change the way I look at life. Shedding away some of these toxic doctrines of shame is really difficult. But they are learned, and I know that. Conscience, for example, is not a sign of God. It is a sign of cognitive dissonance. When we tell our subconscious what is important, and we violate it, it let’s us know. This isn’t God. This is our brain. It is doing what it was ‘created’ or ‘evolved’ to do. How do I know this? Because certain issues in my life, as I learn more information has flipped flopped multiple times… A B A B A, and in each case, I replicate the feeling the ‘guilt’ depending on how a view a certain activity. If this "morality’ were built in, then I would not be able to change how I felt in those situations. If X is a sin, then I would feel guilty every time. If X isn’t a sin, then I wouldn’t. But that isn’t how the conscience works. It may have been given by God (I don’t know), but it is ours to align with the common good. We can align it with evil, or good and it will follow suit…

Still, I post this because I would still ask that you all would pray for me. You might find that an odd thing to request, as I basically seem to have adopted a deist approach to God. But, just because I doubt doesn’t mean my doubts are warranted… I know, that I could very wrong and I may stand condemned one day. But I’d rather stand honestly condemned than dishonestly honored. Hence, if God is there and personal to you, pray to him on by behalf that he may have mercy on my lack of belief.