Do you believe in Soul Sleep?

by **atHisfeet** » Tue May 17, 2011 3:58 am

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

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

by **Aaron** » Tue May 17, 2011 4:10 am

AHF:
We are members of HIS BODY! Raised WITH HIM, who is THE HEAD of the body.

In a previous post you made a similar comment, to which I responded (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=40#p22519):

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but are you saying that the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44 is the one "body of Christ" referred to in 1 Cor 12:12-27? And if so, is it your view that we do not each individually possess a spiritual body of our own?

AHF:
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).

And in an earlier post you wrote:

We do not have to die, physically, in order to “absent from the body” and be “present with the Lord”, Aaron. We only have to “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. (Rom 8) Then we can see God “face to face” and know Him, even as we are known. (1 Cor 13:12)

I responded (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=40#p22520):

It's true that we don't have to die physically in order to be "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord." Paul reveals that those who will still be alive when the "last trumpet" sounds will be "changed" without physically dying (1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 4:13-18). But this implies that everyone else will have to experience this "change" sometime after their "earthly home" has been "destroyed."

As you've asserted that Paul was already "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord," you now seem to be claiming that Paul already saw "face to face" when he wrote. But Paul writes, "For NOW we see in a mirror dimly, but THEN face to face. NOW I know in part; THEN I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." Notice how Paul speaks of seeing "face to face" as a future reality not only for those to whom he wrote, but for himself as well.

If Paul was already "absent from the body and present with the Lord" then he was no longer walking by faith but rather by sight (2 Cor 5:6-7). Is that what you believe?

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

I didn't ask "has anyone responded" in this way - I asked, "couldn't someone say in response..." So if while asking around you were to ask me, I'd say, "Of course they could."

I don't believe 2 Cor 5:8 is nearly as obvious a proof-text for the view that the dead are conscious as you seem to think it is. Can it be understood in a way that is consistent with this view? Of course. Does it have to be understood in this way? I don't think so.

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)?

I was raised a Presbyterian and believed in the immortality of the soul for most of my life, and (if I'm remembering correctly) didn't come to question this doctrine until at least a couple of years after I became a believer in UR. There was certainly a transitional period where I wasn't wholly convinced either way; while I began to see the general tenor of Scripture as strongly suggesting that the dead are not conscious, there were still certain texts that made me hesitant to fully embrace the views I have come to hold. But I attribute my hesitancy to the bias with which I was raised; because of what I was taught from childhood, I assumed certain things and naturally read them into the texts that I perceived to be problematic for the doctrine of "soul sleep." But 2 Cor 5:6-9 was never considered by me to be a particularly strong proof-text for the idea that the dead are conscious, since the context is so clearly the resurrection of the dead (2 Cor 4:13-14; 5:1-5), which is elsewhere revealed to be a future event for all who are dead (1 Cor 15:21-28; 50-55; 1 Thess 4:13-18, etc.). While I could see how Paul's words could be understood in a way that was consistent with the view that the dead are conscious, I didn't think his words necessarily demanded such an interpretation.

Aaron:
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.

AHF:
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?

While Paul was torn between remaining in the flesh (remaining alive) or "departing" (i.e., from this mortal existence), death was, I believe, considered by Paul to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. Death in itself was not at all desirable to Paul; it was that future state of existence into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him, that he longed for.

Our desire is not to be unclothed but to be clothed upon...

Agreed!

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.

I agree that Paul is not talking about physical death or post-mortem realities in Rom 8:9-11, as I made clear in one of my previous responses to you. I also believe you're mistaken for thinking that Paul is talking about the same subject in Rom 8:9-11 as he's talking about in 2 Cor 5:1-5.

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?

Does anything you say above have anything to do with physical death or post-mortem realities? Just wondering.

by **atHisfeet** » Tue May 17, 2011 4:32 am

Paul says we are to know NO MAN after the flesh, not even Christ. (2 Cor 5:16)

If all we know of Christ is the Word “made flesh”, a “man” from Nazareth, then we do not know Christ. We only know Jesus.

Christ is more than “the Word made flesh”, a “man” manifest into this physical world, put to physical death on a physical cross, laid in a physical grave, resurrected physically the third day, seen in a physical body of flesh and bones before ascending to the Father, where He sits on a throne in that same physical body, even to this day.

Christ IS SPIRIT and it is by THE SPIRIT OF GOD that we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.

That “resurrection” has nothing at all to do with the natural body which came from DUST (born of CORRUPTIBLE SEED) and RETURNS TO DUST.

That which is born of the flesh IS FLESH and that which is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

It is OUR SPIRIT that God bears witness to. (Rom 8:16)

It is THE SPIRIT that is quickened. (John 6:63)

God is the Father OF SPIRITS. (Heb 12:9)

We are SPIRITS IN PRISON. (1 Pet 3:19)

It is THE SPIRIT that is SAVED in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor 5:5)

According to Heb 12:22-24, we have come unto ZION, and unto THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to AN INNUMERABLE COMPANY OF ANGELS, to the GENERAL ASSEMBLY, and TO GOD the Judge of all, and to THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT, and to Jesus THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT, and to THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING, THAT SPEAKETH BETTER THINGS than that of Abel.

Because it says: “Father FORGIVE THEM, for THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”. Making intercession for Cain (the first/natural/carnal man who murdered his brother, Abel, the second/spiritual/heavenly man) of whom God asks: “What hast thou done?”

It is not “the types” that are important, it is the reality of which those types are “shadows” that is important. We do not travel to a temple and sacrifice animals upon an alter because those things were not the reality; they were the figures, the types, the shadows of the true. We do not keep the Feasts of the Lord, as did the Jews, because those things were not the reality; they were the figures, the types, the shadows of the true. We don’t abstain from eating unclean meats or mixing fabrics, etc, because those things were not the reality; they were the figures, the types, the shadows of the true.

I will not call this world and all that is in it, all that can be seen and touched and known by the natural man, “the reality” and the rest “a dream world”.

GOD IS SPIRIT! He is NOT OF THIS WORLD. Neither is Christ. So while we are “in this world” we are not “of this world” either. Not if we have been born OF GOD. For THE SECOND MAN (that NEW MAN, that NEW CREATION created IN CHRIST) "is" THE LORD FROM HEAVEN. (1 Cor 15:47)

Shall we, then, continue to identify ourselves WITH ADAM?

Are you “in Adam” or are you “in Christ”?

My hope is that I am “in Christ” and He in me!

If that's "spiritualizing" the scriptures too much or living in "a dream world", then so be it. It's a beautiful world.

Those who think it's not real should come visit it sometime.

by **atHisfeet** » Tue May 17, 2011 6:34 am

Aaron wrote:In a previous post you made a similar comment, to which I responded (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=40#p22519):

Which is why I said we are just repeating the same things over and over again and making no headway.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but are you saying that the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44 is the one "body of Christ" referred to in 1 Cor 12:12-27? And if so, is it your view that we do not each individually possess a spiritual body of our own?

That's not what I said.

Aaron wrote:
AHF:
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).

And in an earlier post you wrote:

We do not have to die, physically, in order to “absent from the body” and be “present with the Lord”, Aaron. We only have to “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. (Rom 8) Then we can see God “face to face” and know Him, even as we are known. (1 Cor 13:12)

I responded (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=40#p22520):

It's true that we don't have to die physically in order to be "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord." Paul reveals that those who will still be alive when the "last trumpet" sounds will be "changed" without physically dying (1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 4:13-18). But this implies that everyone else will have to experience this "change" sometime after their "earthly home" has been "destroyed."

And Paul says that if our earthly body were dissolved that we know WE HAVE that house not made with hands reserved for us in the heavens. He didn't say we had to "wait" until sometime (perhaps much later) to "put it on".

Aaron wrote:As you've asserted that Paul was already "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord," you now seem to be claiming that Paul already saw "face to face" when he wrote. But Paul writes, "For NOW we see in a mirror dimly, but THEN face to face. NOW I know in part; THEN I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." Notice how Paul speaks of seeing "face to face" as a future reality not only for those to whom he wrote, but for himself as well.

And he is talking about the difference between A CHILD (that which IN PART, the EARNEST/FIRST-FRUITS of the spirit) and A SON (KNOWING, even as we are KNOWN, face to face, the adoption OF SONS).

That is why I asked you if you understand the difference.

Aaron wrote:If Paul was already "absent from the body and present with the Lord" then he was no longer walking by faith but rather by sight (2 Cor 5:6-7). Is that what you believe?

Absolutely!

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

I didn't ask "has anyone responded" in this way - I asked, "couldn't someone say in response..." So if while asking around you were to ask me, I'd say, "Of course they could." I don't believe 2 Cor 5:8 is nearly as obvious a proof-text for the view that the dead are conscious as you seem to think it is. Can it be understood in a way that is consistent with this view? Of course. Does it have to be understood in this way? I don't think so.

I stand by my answer. I do not believe that anyone who does not already believe in soul sleep would read that passage that way. I did not say that it cannot be read that way; it obviously is - by those who believe in soul sleep. But I do not believe that anyone else would "naturally" see it that way given the use of the conjuction "and" which joins together the two statements being made.... absent from the body AND present with the Lord.

Aaron wrote:
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)?

I was raised a Presbyterian and believed in the immortality of the soul for most of my life, and (if I'm remembering correctly) didn't come to question this doctrine until at least a couple of years after I became a believer in UR. There was certainly a transitional period where I wasn't wholly convinced either way; while I began to see the general tenor of Scripture as strongly suggesting that the dead are not conscious, there were still certain texts that made me hesitant to fully embrace the views I have come to hold. But I attribute my hesitancy to the bias with which I was raised; because of what I was taught from childhood, I assumed certain things and naturally read them into the texts that I perceived to be problematic for the doctrine of "soul sleep." But 2 Cor 5:6-9 was never considered by me to be a particularly strong proof-text for the idea that the dead are conscious, since the context is so clearly the resurrection of the dead (2 Cor 4:13-14; 5:1-5), which is elsewhere revealed to be a future event for all who are dead (1 Cor 15:21-28; 50-55; 1 Thess 4:13-18, etc.). While I could see how Paul's words could be understood in a way that was consistent with the view that the dead are conscious, I didn't think his words necessarily demanded such an interpretation.

And I believe that "absent from the body AND present with Lord" strongly demands such an interpretation. I was merely content to argue that "and" does not mean "is to be" when I believed in soul sleep and "had" to see that passage another way in order for what I believed to be "true". But this is not the only passage that I feel is a "problem" for the doctrine of soul sleep - which I had very little trouble embracing once I studied it. I actually had a much harder time giving it up than taking it up - for I thought I had searched out the whole matter, studied every relevant passage. And for awhile not a single passage presented to me or a single question asked of me could shake my belief in it.... but the days started coming when that was no longer the case. And over time, as I began to see who "the dead" actually are and what (and WHO) "the resurrection of the dead" is, I was "forced" to give that doctrine up as "false' and have had no reason given to me to take it up again. I am not my natural body. And I do not believe that it will ever be "resurrected from the dead". I believe it will return to dust.

Aaron wrote:While Paul was torn between remaining in the flesh (remaining alive) or "departing" (i.e., from this mortal existence), death was, I believe, considered by Paul to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. Death in itself was not at all desirable to Paul; it was that future state of existence into which death would, from his perspective, introduce him, that he longed for.

However you reason with it, Paul said his "desire" was TO DEPART. If he knew that He would not "be with Lord" immediately upon departing (even if it would be his next conscioius expereince) then I can hardly imagine him being "torn" between departing and remaining when he also knew that it was more needful for them that he remain.

Aaron wrote:
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.

I agree that Paul is not talking about physical death or post-mortem realities in Rom 8:9-11, as I made clear in one of my previous responses to you. I also believe you're mistaken for thinking that Paul is talking about the same subject in Rom 8:9-11 as he's talking about in 2 Cor 5:1-5.

I have no problem with you disagreeing. I've shared my reasons why I see it as I do. all are free to either take them or leave them.

Aaron wrote:
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?

Does anything you say above have anything to do with physical death or post-mortem realities? Just wondering.

It has to do with who it is that is being "clothed" with immortality. And, as I see it, it isn't corpses in physical graves. And, yes, it is relevant to physical death (not required) and post-mortem realities (those who have put on immortality cannot die, even if their natural body has yet to).

by **Paidion** » Tue May 17, 2011 7:28 am

2 Corinthians 5

8 we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body [this present mortal body], and to be present with the lord [in our immortal resurrected body]. King James

4 for we that are in this tabernacle [this present mortal body] do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed [exist as a disembodied spirit], but clothed upon [with the immortal resurrected body], that mortality might be swallowed up of life. King James

Note: My clarification in brackets; not part of the text

by **atHisfeet** » Tue May 17, 2011 8:01 am

Paidion wrote:2 Corinthians 5

8 we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body [this present mortal body], and to be present with the lord [in our immortal resurrected body]. King James

4 for we that are in this tabernacle [this present mortal body] do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed [exist as a disembodied spirit], but clothed upon [with the immortal resurrected body], that mortality might be swallowed up of life. King James

Note: My clarification in brackets; not part of the text

Paul shows that one can be "caught up to paradise" without physically dying. In such an instance, Paul said he did not even know whether it was "in the body" or "out of the body", only God knows. So I have no propblem seeing that one can be "absent from the body" AND "present with the Lord" without having to phyiscally die. Or that this would be our "preference"... to be walking "in the spirit" (with the Lord) rather than walking "in the flesh" (with the world).

It is still "this mortal" that is "putting on" immortality (that only Christ has) and we do so by being "clothed upon" (with Christ), not by being "unclothed" (dying physically). And, according to Paul, "as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27)

If we have "put on" Christ, then we have "put on" immortality and death has been swallowed up of life.

If we have been raised with him (Col 2:12) and translated into His kingdom (Col 1;13), then we are "children of the resurrection". (Luke 20:36)

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world [AGE = LAW = CHILD] marry, and are given in marriage:

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (AGE = GRACE = SON], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: [for they are espoused TO CHRIST]

Luke 20:36 Neither can [present tense] they die [present tense] any more: for they are [present tense] equal unto the angels [those who ASCEND AND DESCEND UPON THE SON OF MAN]; and are [present tense] the children [SONS] of God, being [present tense] the children [SONS] of the resurrection.

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

Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

The dead are being raised! By the faith of Christ. By our being found in Him. By being baptized into HIs death (= the second death) and having part in His resurerction (= the first resurrection).

Jesus said that HE IS the resurrection and the life and those who believe, though they WERE DEAD, yet shall THEY LIVE. And those who live and believe SHALL NEVER DIE.

Believest thou this?

by **AUniversalist** » Tue May 17, 2011 9:25 am

Paidion wrote: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.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living Soul.

I do not believe the soul exists separate from body and spirit. I do not believe the spirit is the soul, nor do I believe the body is the soul. I believe that Body+Spirit = Living Soul. I believe upon physical death, just as Jesus said and the Scriptures state, the graves of those who died previous to the Resurrection of the Dead, came back to life and entered into the Kingdom of Heaven. Since then, those who died have been resurrected in a spiritual body not a natural one.

1 Corinthians 15:12-21 If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Matthew 25:51-53 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Ephesians 4:9-9
“This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took with him many captives and gave gifts to his people.” (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

This is what the Lord told me when I asked. He said that the DEAD ARE ALREADY RAISED. The moment we die physically, since the Resurrection, we too are also raised. We don't precede those who physically died because they are ALREADY RAISED. The Resurrection of the Dead was, is and is to come. That is why we look forward to His return, but our hope in Christ is not for this present life, but in the Resurrection of the Dead.

John 14:2-3 In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

Yes, that draws out problems in people's minds about then what is the point of living, but that is the same excuses that come up when we recognized that all are saved.

1. The Soul is BODY + SPIRIT. No soul exists without a body, no soul exists without the Spirit.
2. The moment the body dies, since the Resurrection of the Dead and afterwards, The soul has been raised to life in the Resurrection of the Dead.
3. The Soul is sown a natural body, but it is raised a spiritual body.
4. The trumpet sounds the day we physically die and He returns to receive you to Himself, that where He is presently, there you will also be!

by **AUniversalist** » Tue May 17, 2011 9:25 am

Paidion wrote:2 Corinthians 5

8 we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body [this present mortal body], and to be present with the lord [in our immortal resurrected body]. King James

4 for we that are in this tabernacle [this present mortal body] do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed [exist as a disembodied spirit], but clothed upon [with the immortal resurrected body], that mortality might be swallowed up of life. King James

Note: My clarification in brackets; not part of the text

Amen!

by **Aaron** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:23 am

Lefein wrote:
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.

"Immortality" is an attribute of God because he cannot and will not cease to be existentially alive. But according to Scripture, human beings/individuals are not immortal but mortal, and we won't "put on immortality" until the dead are raised and the living are changed at the "last trumpet." You may not like the fact that we are not presently immortal like God is, but it's a fact nonetheless. To say we are immortal now is contrary to fact and undermines the truth of the resurrection.

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.

Where are we told in Scripture that "the child returns to God" at death? In 1 Kings 17:21 (ESV) we read that after the widow's child died, Elijah "stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the LORD, 'O LORD my God, let this child's life (nephesh) come into him again." We then read (v. 22), "And the LORD listened to the voice of Elijah. And the life (nephesh) of the child came into him again, and he revived." Here the word nephesh (often rendered "soul") undoubtedly carries the same meaning as the word ruach (often rendered "spirit") in Ps. 146:4 and elsewhere. According to these verses, did the widow's child leave his body when he died, or did the child's nephesh (i.e., his "soul" or life) leave the child? Obviously, the latter. When Elijah lay on top of the child and prayed to God, the "child" hadn't begun a disembodied journey to heaven; rather, the "child" was dead and unconscious, and was resting exactly where his dead body was resting. And why's this? Answer: because like all human beings, the child was constituted by his physical body. When the child's nephesh left his body and his body died, the child died and was "lifeless." When the child's nephesh re-entered his body and his body was reanimated, the child "came back to life."

And where are we told that "the spirit goes on to dwell in the mansions or rooms prepared for them in Christ's Father's house?" Why do you equate the spirit of man that returns to God who gave it as the man himself when Scripture says it is the man/individual (i.e., the human being to whom personal pronouns refer) who dies and returns to the dust? Was God talking to a spirit that was going to leave Adam's body at death when he said, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return?" To what does the "your" and the "you" in the above verse refer? A physical, bodily being named "Adam" or a "spirit" that left Adam's body at death? If "Adam" is a spirit rather than a personal being constituted by a physical body, then "Adam" neither died nor returned to the dust. If man is a spirit, why did the Psalmist write concerning man, "When his breath (ruach) departs he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish" (146:4)? To what do the personal pronouns "his" and "he" refer in this verse? A physical, bodily being or a "spirit?" According to Luke, before Stephen "fell asleep" (i.e., died) he prayed," "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." A few verses later Luke informs us that "devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him" (Acts 8:2). What does the name "Stephen" and the personal pronoun "him" refer to in this verse? Did Luke have in mind a "disembodied spirit?"

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.

Where did you learn that "the Resurrection consummates on the Earth what has already happened in the Father's house" and "in the Resurrection the Earth becomes the Father's house?" At the resurrection, both those who are dead and those who will still be alive will be caught up from the earth into the clouds, and will be taken to where Christ went at his ascension (i.e., heaven). This is after "death, the last enemy" has been "destroyed." But during the age of the "new heaven and new earth," Christ reigns in the New Jerusalem alongside God (Rev 22:1; cf. 11:15). But Christ is to reign until he has subjected all people to himself and destroyed death (which takes place at the "last trumpet"). After this, Christ is to deliver the kingdom to God (1 Cor 15:24), thereby making God the sole ruler over his kingdom.

I am immortal, because Immortality dwells in me, and I in Him.

It is when the "last trumpet" sounds - and not before - that mankind will be "imperishable" and "immortal." At least, that's what I believe God has chosen to reveal to us. Mortals will become immortal and the dead will become imperishable "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." The "death" that believers will not and cannot die while they abide in Christ is not the "death" that is "swallowed up in victory" at the sounding of the "last trumpet." It is the "death" that Adam died on the day he sinned, and which Paul says he and those to whom he wrote were suffering before they heard and believed the gospel. Neither this "death" nor its opposite state has anything to do with whether or not we are existentially dead or alive after physical death. If when Christ said, "Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall not die for the age" he meant that those who believed on him would not existentially die, then it would mean that before a person believes on him they are exposed to existential death and will existentially die if they don't believe on him! Is this what you believe, Lefein? If it's not, then your view is not internally consistent. And since you believe that all people are by virtue of creation immortal beings and that no being made in the image of God can existentially die, then the "death" that Christ has in view (which believers avoid) can't refer to "existential death." It simply wouldn't be in view. And if that's the case, then the "life" that is the opposite of this state of "death" can't refer to "existential life." Neither existential death nor existential life would be in view.

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.

We will never cease to be the objects of God's love. Not even a temporary cessation of existence can separate us from God's love. We are no more separated from God's love after we cease to exist than we were separated from God's love before we came into existence. While I realize you said that you don't fear non-existence, the above words seem to betray a fear that a cessation of existence would mean that we have been separated from God's love. But you need not fear that a cessation of existence would mean we have been "plucked from God's hands." Christ is Lord of both the dead and the living. This presupposes, of course, that some are dead and in need of being restored to a living existence (i.e., existential life), and that some are alive and aren't yet in need of being restored to a living existence.

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.

You don't have to redefine "death" to mean something other than a loss of existential life in order to believe that it can't separate us from God's love.

If Existence is in you, and upholds you; you will not cease to exist.

That's like saying, "If God gives you life and breath, he will never take that life and breath away from you." But that's exactly what happens at death; our life and breath are taken from us. We exist as living beings as long as God's breath is in our nostrils. When God's breath leaves us, we cease to exist as living beings. But does this mean God stops loving us? Nope. God still loves us just as much as he did before he brought us into existence.

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.

We were created to exist as physical, embodied beings. If we cease to exist as physical, embodied beings even for a moment, then it could be said that "Existence is not in us, and did not uphold us because we ceased to exist as physical, embodied beings." But so what? God still loves us, and will restore us to a physical, embodied existence in his time so that we may "always be with the Lord."

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;

The hope that is written on my heart is that, through Christ, God is going to restore me and everyone who dies to a living existence at the resurrection of the dead. It is this hope to which I was "born again" and in which I was saved, not the "hope" that I will never cease to exist as a living being. That's not a hope that Scripture reveals or sanctions. It's a false hope that undermines the truth of the resurrection. When Paul was seeking to give encouragement to the Thessalonians so that they might not "grieve as others do who have no hope," did he tell them that they possessed or were "immortal souls" and that they would never cease to exist? No; he reminded them of the resurrection of the dead and then gave them additional information on what is going to happen when this event takes place.

Your view undermines the true and living hope that is supposed to be within the believer, and I can't help but reject it as such.

"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."

I believe this, too. But not being separated from the love of God has nothing to do with not being temporarily separated from a living, conscious existence. God knew and loved us before we came into existence and became conscious, and he will know and love while when we have temporarily ceased to exist as living, conscious beings.

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.

According to Scripture, it is the human person - the individual - who is said to sleep. For example, in Matthew 27:52 the Gospel writer records that "…many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised." This verse alone stand at odds with your assertion that it is merely our bodies that are asleep in the grave while we - the persons/individuals - are not. According to Matthew, it is not merely the bodies of the saints, but the saints themselves who are depicted as having "fallen asleep." Evidently, the saints were just as "asleep" as you think their bodies were.

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.

Again, that's like saying, "To tell me that I shall cease to have God's breath in me, is to deny that God's breath is in me at all, or that I am a living soul at all." But of course, that's not true. Unless you are among those who will still be alive at Christ's coming to raise the dead, God's "breath" is one day going to depart from you, and you will begin to return to the elements from which you were made. You will cease to be a living, conscious being. But you will not be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus; he will restore to you your life and consciousness when you are raised from the dead, and you will "always be with the Lord."

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.

Nowhere does Scripture ascribe to the words translated "soul" and "spirit" the meaning you have ascribed to them. The "spirit" or "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam to make him a "living soul" was life, and his life left him at death and returned to God who gave it, just as it will leave all people at death. But God didn't stop loving Adam, even after his life departed from him and he returned to the dust. Nor will he cease loving you.

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.

Both man and beast have "the same spirit" and are alike "living souls." Are the beasts God's offspring too? Are they "spirit" as well?

Lefein, while your view is clothed in lofty and heartfelt language, it is, I believe, about as true and Scriptural as reincarnation.

Aaron:
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.

Lefein:
In the body it ceases, not in the being.

We are beings constituted by a physical body and are alive as long as our body is alive. When our body dies, we die along with it. Consciousness is tied to life; it cannot be separated from it. So no, our life and consciousness doesn't continue after our body dies.

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.

A better analogy would be this: our mind is like the music that is produced as a pianist plays a piano. When the musician stops playing, the music stops and is no more until the musician resumes playing. When the brain stops functioning and the life departs from the body, the mind is no more until the life returns and the brain starts functioning again.

Aaron:
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.

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

So what? Liberty is conceptual; it is not an actual entity or substance. Just as "liberty" wouldn't be destroyed just because the Statue of Liberty was destroyed, we will continue to exist conceptually in the mind of God even after our body has been destroyed.

Aaron:
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?"

Lefein:
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.

The "land of the living" is the land where living human beings exist. To be cut off from the "land of the living" is to be a dead human being. Those who are dead have ceased to exist as living beings, and are thus existentially dead. And you have no evidence that consciousness continues after human life ends.

Aaron:
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.

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

Ditto.

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

To be embodied is, I believe, to be constituted by some kind of finite, spatially extended matter/substance. It is this that "confines" or "localizes" us to one place at a time. This gives us "boundaries" and allows us to be separate from everything else, so that everything is not an extension of us and we have a separate identity. If God is like the ocean, our body can be thought of as functioning like a bubble in the ocean. If we were not constituted by some sort of finite, spatially extended matter/substance I can't help but conclude that we would either exist in no place at all or we'd exist in every possible place, as many believe God does.

Having said that, I've speculated that, in relation to his creation, there may even be a sense in which God does not personally and mentally exist in every possible place. If in relation to his creation God is not in some sense "localized" but rather exists in every possible place and interpenetrates all of his creation, then it would seem to follow that his mind exists in every possible place and interpenetrates all of his creation. If (as Panentheism asserts) the universe is "in God" and God's mind is thus everywhere present in the universe, then his mind would have no boundaries and no separate existence from every other mind. If everything was "in God" and God existed in every possible place, it seems that everything would be an extension of himself and his mind. And how could we exist as separate entities and have separate identities if God is everywhere present, and his mind is not localized and without boundaries? I've speculated that God might choose to manifest himself in a localized form in order to interact with his finite creation, but perhaps it is necessary for God to "localize" his mind/consciousness in some sort of embodied form in order for his mind to be separate from what he wants and chooses to create. That is, perhaps in choosing to bring "not-God" into existence God necessarily chooses to become (at least insofar as he relates to his creation) localized and embodied, restricting "part" of himself to one place at a time. This localization of his mind and embodiment of his person need not mean that a limit or restriction has been placed on God's knowledge, or on his power and influence over what he creates. And even if God were, in some sense, embodied and localized to one place in relation to his creation, there would still be a sense in which God would remain everywhere present and have power and influence over everything he creates. His "centre of consciousness" would simply not be everywhere present.

Aaron:
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.

How does this follow? Angels are not "disembodied" beings; as far as we know, they've always been in the same form they exist in now. If, after we die, we exist in the same immortal form as the angels do, wouldn't we be "equal to angels" after death? That is, wouldn't that which Jesus said would be true of us after the resurrection instead be true of us "after our physical bodies are passed?" Once again, your view seems to undermine the truth of the resurrection.

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.

If the angelic being that wrestled with Jacob had a body when they were wrestling, what makes you think it exists without a body?

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

Of course they aren't; angels are localized beings who can only be in one place at one time.

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

In what sense are we "seated in Heavenly places?" Are you literally on earth and literally in heaven at the same time? Is that how you understand Paul in Ephesians? If so, what's it like existing in two places at once? Unless your experience is radically different from mine, I would guess that it doesn't feel all that different from existing in only one place at once (but of course I don't believe Paul is saying we are actually in two or more places at once; he's using figurative imagery to convey the idea that, in Christ, we have been given great authority and privileges).

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

To be "embodied" is, I believe, to be constituted and localized by some sort of matter/substance. If Jacob wrestled with an angel, and if John fell at the feet of an angel, then it would seem that angels are constituted and localized by some sort of tangible matter/substance. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If something looks like a body and functions like a body and feels like a body, then it probably is a body.

Aaron:
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.

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

That colours exist is something we can know by experience and observation. That the dead are conscious, or that we possess (or are) "immortal souls," is not. There's a big difference between believing that colours exist and believing that something only God could reveal to us exists. If God hasn't revealed it to us, we have no good reason to believe something exists if our experience and observation does not inform us that it does.

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

Right. Christ told us he would come again and take us to himself, so that we may be where he is in Heaven. And when will this be, Lefein? Is it when we die or when "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God"? Does the Lord come for us to take us where he is, or do we float away in a disembodied state to heaven after we die and go to him?

(To be continued when I have more time)

by **Paidion** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:32 am

Aaron, I am essentially in agreement with you concerning human mortality and our hope in the resurrection.

I am wondering what your thinking is concerning the incarnation of Christ. Christ pre-existed as the Son of God. Was the pre-existing Son of God pure spirit, or did He possess a spirit body. If the former, then it would seem that pure spirit could become "constituted" as you say, in or with the body which Mary bore. If the latter, how could that spirit body become a human body? Also, when Jesus died, did He cease to exist prior to His resurrection? Or did He "become a life-giving spirit", existing apart from a body of any kind.

I have struggled with these questions in view of my foundation of understanding (nearly identical to yours) and so for some time I have wanted to ask these questions of another who sees mortality and immortality as I do.

by **Lefein** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:04 am

It almost seems to me Aaron, that you are far more afraid of being in the presence of God without your physical body between you and Him, than I am of being separated from Him by the thorough gulf of Existence vs. Non-existence.

It is very simple, I refuse to limit God's work and Life-giving as being relegated to a physical body, or a physical event far flung into the future; I refuse to limit God's work to the material, and I refuse to limit my God-given existence to the material expression of it. My belief that I will never, by no means whatsoever be wholly separated from God on my part or on His part; by existence/non-existence or otherwise; does not undermine the Resurrection, neither does it undermine the hope of Christians. My view is that The Living are made alive by Life, who are alive now and will be made more alive in the 'aions' to come, and that those who are (a)"dead" will be made alive also.

a; Which I do not believe is cessation of existence, or those who have ceased to exist. The prodigal son did not 'cease to exist', when he was 'dead to his father' and having come home was 'alive again'. He was spending his time in the swine trough when he was 'dead'.

Your arguments that my view undermines this or that belief or hope is nothing new. I'm sure many Eternal Damnationalists have said that to Universalists when they talk about the greater hope; "Your view undermines the hope of believers". But like the Universalist I can return the sentiment; "Your view undermines the greater hope of believers."

No matter how much you say otherwise, cessation of an existence is separation. You can't get any further from the I AM than to "not-be". And as for the argument that one was not separated from God before they existed; I'd be more inclined to believe in pre-existence than I am of cessation of existence. I'd also be inclined to wonder if they were not indeed separated from God, as per the traditional view of Salvation, but that certainly never involved cessation of existence.

If all of your hope rests in being physically embodied, you can have it. I'll believe what I am convinced is better, hope better, and receive better, which is not what you insist to be better for me, neither your interpretations, nor your theology. I'll go to Heaven, come back again, and be resurrected.

Our views are far too polarised on this issue to come to any concise compromise. You'd have me literally cease to exist. I'd have you exist in the presence of God continuously and have the resurrection too. It is no wonder I prefer the latter idea.

by **AUniversalist** » Wed May 18, 2011 11:29 am

Paidion wrote:I am wondering what your thinking is concerning the incarnation of Christ. Christ pre-existed as the Son of God. Was the pre-existing Son of God pure spirit, or did He possess a spirit body. If the former, then it would seem that pure spirit could become "constituted" as you say, in or with the body which Mary bore. If the latter, how could that spirit body become a human body? Also, when Jesus died, did He cease to exist prior to His resurrection? Or did He "become a life-giving spirit", existing apart from a body of any kind.

I know you weren't speaking to me, but I just comment if I can.

There is no life existing apart from a body of any kind. Everything that lives, has a body and our hope is in the Resurrection of the Dead. Our hope is in the resurrection of the dead, because presently we live in a physical mortal body. Our hope is in the realization that there is a spiritual immortal body for us.

Saying this, there is! And it has already happened and so we look forward now to life, not death since all have been Baptized and Buried in His Death and All are now raised in His Life (The Ressurection).

What we need to realize is That What Was, Is, and Is to come. Time is not a restriction of when the resurrection is because those who have gone before us have already been risen, just as He is risen and we too who are presently alive will also be changed because God is not the God of the dead but of the living. So even when we shed this physical mortal body, we are in a twinkling of an eye resurrected in an immortal spirital body.

by **Paidion** » Wed May 18, 2011 12:30 pm

Sorry, SotW, but your response doesn't help me at all with my question. Your position makes even less sense to me than that of rline. Your "resurrection" is not he resurrection of which I read in the New Testament.

You have said in your post above,"There is no life existing apart from a body of any kind." What about the life of God the Father? Does the Father have a body? Those beings which have bodies, animals, people, angels, and the resurrected Christ are visible. Is the Father visible?

Here are the scriptural answers to my questions:

John 4:24 God is spirit

1 Timothy 1:17 To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

If God is spirit, that suggests He is bodiless --- also the fact that He is invisible.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God...

by **AUniversalist** » Wed May 18, 2011 3:09 pm

Paidion wrote:Sorry, SotW, but your response doesn't help me at all with my question. Your position makes even less sense to me than that of rline. Your "resurrection" is not he resurrection of which I read in the New Testament.

Forgive me if I appear to have a tone in my writings. It is unconsciously there and I have been working to rid myself of it for a long time. So again sorry.

The new testament resurrection taught by many 'Christians' is from Roman Catholicism, and it got it's understanding of the resurrection from it's pagan roots. Specifically, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman understandings. Their resurrection requires the SAME dust body for a resurrection and that when this resurrection happens, those who are raised will be never die again. This is not the resurrection described by Paul, nor is this the resurrection Jesus speaks of. The Scriptures do not even speak of such an event. The Scriptures says dust returns to dust and that is where it stays. Paul says that the dust body remains dust but the soul is raised with a new spiritual body from heaven not earth. Jesus said He is the Resurrection of the Dead, and that He has gone to the Father to prepare our body.

You have said in your post above,"There is no life existing apart from a body of any kind." What about the life of God the Father? Does the Father have a body? Those beings which have bodies, animals, people, angels, and the resurrected Christ are visible. Is the Father visible?

Here are the scriptural answers to my questions:

John 4:24 God is spirit

1 Timothy 1:17 To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

If God is spirit, that suggests He is bodiless --- also the fact that He is invisible.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God...

Are you sure about that logic?

It doesn't say he is bodiless, it says he is invisible.

In Him we live and move and have our being, as Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."

However, more pointed the fullness of God DOES live dwells in bodily form.

Colossians 2:8-10 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form

We know God most definitely does have a house and it has been made throughout the Scripture, that house refers to the body in which the spirit dwells.

2 Corinthians 5:1-4
For we have known that if our earthly house of the tabernacle may be thrown down, a building from God we have, an house not made with hands -- age-during -- in the heavens, for also in this we groan, with our dwelling that is from heaven earnestly desiring to clothe ourselves, if so be that, having clothed ourselves, we shall not be found naked, for we also who are in the tabernacle do groan, being burdened, seeing we wish not to unclothe ourselves, but to clothe ourselves, that the mortal may be swallowed up of the life.

Just like universalism changed the way we though about salvation, it also must change the way we look at the resurrection they are intrinsically entwined.

I believe the view of resurrection you have is not found in the New Testament, although many Christians still hold on to such a view, just as they still think 99.998% of the humanity is lost for eternity in burning fires which they have no escape or 'salvation'

All that, and I could be wrong. All I know is that God said the key to understanding Universalism is to know the Resurrection. So since universalism, I have studied it to find out why and my conclusion is, the resurrection is not what we have been taught.

p.s. Forgive my spelling and grammar. I am a little tired today.

by **Aaron** » Wed May 18, 2011 6:53 pm

Aaron:
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.

Lefein:
I can't help that you only read Scripture through Materialist eyes.

I don't "only read Scripture through Materialist eyes." Scripture confirms what my experience and observation leads me to believe. I believe one has to read a good bit into Scripture in order to get out of it the idea that the dead are conscious in a disembodied, immaterial state.

Moreover, matter and embodiment is considered good in God's eyes, so believing that man is constituted by a physical body is hardly something to be ashamed of. And just because God is said to be "spirit" doesn't mean he isn't material in some sense. Perhaps God is made of matter in its highest - or most fundamental - form. "Spirit" need only be understood as referring to the fact that God is unseen but produces visible effects, since "spirit" refers to that which is unseen but has visible effects, or which manifests itself in a visible way (such as the wind, our life/vitality or our mind/feelings). But I don't believe only in "matter." Our thoughts and feelings (for example) are not material, but I believe they depend on organized matter for their existence.

You've denied Samuel as being just a vision, or an outright demonic impersonation.

I've not once claimed that Samuel is a demonic impersonation. Nor do I believe he was a vision. Perhaps you should read over my thoughts on this passage again: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1235&start=100#p23356

Denied Elijah and Moses on the mount of Transfiguration as just being visions

It was Jesus himself who described what his disciples saw as being a "vision."

and denied the Souls under the altar as being just symbolic.

Are you seriously accusing me of believing that something John describes in a book of symbols is symbolic? Really? That's like accusing someone of believing that a water-spewing, seven-headed red dragon (Rev 12:3, 15) is "symbolic," or that a talking altar (Rev 16:7) is "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)

In this passage the child's "soul" is his "life," not the child himself. It was the child's life that "came into him again," causing him to "revive."

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)

Who or what was Jesus talking to when he said, "Maid, arise?" Here's a hint: it wasn't the girl's "spirit." The girl's spirit didn't "arise." The girl did. Her (the girl's) spirit "came again" and then we're told that "she (the girl) arose straightway." Then Jesus commanded to give her (the girl) food. Your view makes nonsense of this verse and turns it on its head.

The word translated "spirit" means the same thing as the word translated "soul" above (i.e., "life").

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.

You mean "evidence" like the above two passages? According to you, the "soul" is the individual - the person. So let's apply this to the first passage you provided by substituting "child" for "child's soul":

"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 come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the child came into him again, and he revived."

Aaron:
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?

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

Like many of your responses, this one is highly evasive. What is it that makes the human "God's child" rather than the dog or ape?

Aaron
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.

Lefein:
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.

How is what I said irrelevant to the specific comment to which I was responding? You had said:

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 think what I said is highly relevant to your point expressed above.

And again, why does a man have to have a "transcendent nature" (i.e., an "immortal soul") in order to bear God's image rather than be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, unable to lie, etc.? Why is being a rational, self-aware being with a moral nature not enough? And if animals have "transcendent natures" (i.e., immortal souls) as well as human beings, how is it that they don't bear God's image as well?

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

See above.

Aaron:
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:
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.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I believe the god of immortal soul-ism is just as much an "imposter" as the god of reincarnation.

Aaron:
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.

Lefein:
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.

If being in the presence of God in a disembodied state is "best" then how is being embodied "ideal?" You yourself have said that it is.

Aaron:
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."

Lefein:
You have no idea what it is even like.

Do you? Is that why you think being disembodied is equally "best" compared to being embodied?

It feels to me almost as if you trust your embodiment for your comfort more than your God.

Well then I wouldn't trust your feelings on this. Like Paul, I have "a hope in God...that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust." This is where my "comfort" comes from. I trust that God is going to restore me and everyone else to a living, embodied existence at the resurrection of the dead, not that he created me and everyone else with an "immortal soul" that goes to heaven at death.

Aaron:
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?

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

Why are they not his children too? Don't they bear God's image in the sense that you think is more important than "merely" having rational self-awareness and a moral nature?

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.

So what is the difference between a human and an animal, according to your view? According to you, both humans and animals have transcendent natures/immortal souls, and we both have rationality, self-awareness and morality. Why don't animals bear God's image as human beings do?

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.

Did Adam make a moral choice when he partook of the fruit? And if he didn't, did he have the created capacity for morality before he partook of the fruit?

Aaron:
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."

Lefein:
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.

Do you believe there was a personal being hanging out in the mouths of every one of these prophets of Ahab?

Aaron:
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?"

Lefein:
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".

How do you define "tangible?"

Aaron:
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.

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

And I think your response fails to in any way substantiate your position.

Aaron:
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?

I don't think the expression "broken brain" is the most appropriate way to speak of mental illness, but okay.

Aaron:
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?

Lefein:
As often as the Holy Spirit talks to you perhaps.

1) I don't think the Holy Spirit is a "disembodied being" or a personal, self-aware being (unless by "Holy Spirit" you mean "the Father," who is said to be "spirit"). But that's another discussion.

2) How often do you think John's readers encountered and received messages from evil disembodied beings?

Aaron:
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."

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

You seem to be saying that when the word "spirit" is referred to as an anthropomorphic entity it is most often the case that it refers to an anthropomorphic entity. Is that correct?

Aaron:
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.

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

1) If "spirit" can refer to the mental/emotional aspect of a person's nature, then it wouldn't be identical to the person. That is, it wouldn't be the person in their totality, or define them in the fullest and most complete sense. You are more than the mental/emotional aspect of your nature. It's only a part of who you are. And to say it's more essential to who you are than being embodied is, I believe, to beg the question.

2) Why do you think we even have a brain if we can think just as well without it?

3) When Paul refers to the "spirit of your minds" do you think "spirit" means "a person that continues on after death, conscious and existent?" If not, why not? And if so (i.e., if the "spirit of our minds" is a conscious, self-aware person), wouldn't that mean that a conscious self-aware person has a conscious self-aware person in their mind?

Aaron:
What do you mean by "more?"

Lefein:
Indescribable.

Is there no possible way for you to even begin to explain what you're talking about, then?

Aaron:
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:
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.

Jesus says he is the resurrection and the life because he is the one to whom God has given the power and authority to restore the dead to life, whether the "death" be a death in sin, or physical/existential death. I think you're reading your own ideas into the "conversation between Lazarus' sister and Jesus."

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.

It's true that Martha was only thinking of the future event when her brother would be raised up, as Jesus had promised all would be on the "last day" (e.g., John 6:39). But Jesus doesn't correct her on this, he simply seeks to broaden her understanding of what it means for us to "live," and puts the emphasis on himself. He said to her, "Your brother will rise again." By this he was talking about what he was just about to do for Lazarus. But after Martha affirms her faith in what Jesus had spoken of previously, Jesus then takes it even further and applies this principle of himself as life-giver to not only our existential life after physical death but to the spiritual life of the believer in this present existence. In essence Jesus is saying that not only will he restore the existentially dead to existential life (as he was about to do for Lazarus), but that those who believe on him will enjoy a life that they couldn't enjoy otherwise, even while existentially alive.

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.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I believed Jesus was not only talking about a future, embodied life in these verses but also a spiritual life to be experienced in the present by those who believe on him. You write as if I have completely neglected this, which makes discussing this topic with you quite frustrating. This "life" that believers receive is, I believe, the "life more abundant" that Jesus speaks of elsewhere, and which Paul refers to as "newness of life." But you seem to have this confused idea that the "life" that believers enjoy now, in this present existence, has something to do with their being existentially alive after they physically die. This is a mistake.
As for the resurrection on the last day (when all who die in Adam - both just and unjust - will be made alive in Christ), I believe all people - not just those who believe on Christ in this life - will be happier than either of us can possibly imagine.

In other words; there is more to the person's ability to exist than the existence of the body

How do you get this out of John 11?

there is more the the Resurrection than the event. There is more to God than what we see.

Again, I believe Jesus calls himself the resurrection and the life because he has been given the power and authority to restore the dead to life, whether they are physically/existentially dead or dead in sins and estranged from God. I'm still not sure what you're trying to argue against when you tell me that "there is more to the Resurrection than the event." Are you trying to say that I don't think believers can enjoy spiritual life now? Are you trying to say that I don't think Jesus is the one who restores the dead to life? Are you trying to say that my view of how happy we'll be after the resurrection is in some way deficient?

Aaron:
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."

Lefein:
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.

What "death" do you think Christ is "killing" even as we speak? Is it existential death? According to your view that can't be, because it would mean that some are existentially dead and in need of being given existential life. But no human being (or even animal) can, according to your view, existentially die, because they are by virtue of creation "immortal souls."

Is it physical death? According to your view, this can't be because people are physically dying every day, and the resurrection of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15 is still future. According to Paul, death will be "swallowed up in victory" when the "last trumpet" sounds and the dead are raised imperishable and the living are changed into immortal beings.

Is it the kind of "death" to which Paul refers in Rom 8:6, Eph 2:1 and elsewhere (i.e., being dead in our trespasses and sins)? According to your view, this is the only death that Christ can be "killing" even as we speak. But even then, this "death" is only being "killed" in the lives of those who believe on Christ, and those who are presently believing on Christ are comparatively few in number. And you have no evidence that those who have physically died can believe on Christ or do anything except return to the dust from which human beings were made.

Aaron:
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?

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

Knowing that pi is 3.14 doesn't require a special revelation from God; knowing that we have an "immortal soul" and that the dead are conscious in a disembodied state most certainly does.

Aaron:
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.

Lefein:
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.

How is this supposed to be an objection to anything I've said? Have I ever argued that the Jews had a "pure religion?" No; I said that to whatever extent the Jewish people 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), their beliefs were far superior to those of the pagans.

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.

Again, when have I argued that ancient theology was "pure" simply because it was ancient? I'm pretty sure I've said that the belief that the dead are conscious is quite ancient. It's been believed by human beings for perhaps as long as human beings have foolishly chosen to believe that which God has not revealed to man.

Aaron:
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.

Aaron:
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.

Did Christ make it a point to tell the Pharisees their error in believing that some people will be detained in an everlasting prison and subject to eternal torment? According to Josephus, the view of the Pharisees was that "under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as [people] have lived virtuously or according to vice in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison (eirgmon aidion), but that the former shall have power to revive and live again" (D. Ant. 18.14-15). And in another work, Josephus states that the Pharisees believed that the souls of the wicked would be "subject to eternal torment (aidios timoria)." (B. War 2.162-64) Did Christ ever explicitly correct them on this point? Did he ever say, "You believe that some people will be detained in an everlasting prison under the earth and subject to eternal punishment, but I say to you, there is no such place of eternal confinement or punishment. You are quite wrong." What about the doctrine of pre-existence/reincarnation? This seems to be presupposed in the question that the disciples asked Jesus in John 9:2. But Jesus doesn't explicitly and directly correct them on this by telling them that people can't sin before they are born, and that the very idea that people can is a falsehood; he simply tells them that this wasn't the reason the man was born blind. As far as the disciples knew, the blind man could still have been a sinner before he was born; according to Jesus, the man's being born blind simply wasn't a consequence of it. Jesus didn't say otherwise, because it simply wasn't part of his mission to directly and explicitly challenge and correct every false idea held by the Jews in his day, whether they were held by the religious leaders or his own disciples.

Aaron:
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").

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

1) How do you know those Christians who denied that man has an "immortal soul" were in a "very vast minority" when the "earthly church Fathers" wrote?

2) Does being in a minority mean that one is mistaken? Was Martin Luther further from the truth because he was in a minority in his day (he is commonly thought to have believed in "soul sleep," btw)? How about those Christians who were a part of the "Radical Reformation" (e.g., the Anabaptists)? Were they further from the truth than the rest of their Protestant and Catholic brethren, who made up the majority of Christians? Are believers in UR today further from the truth because they are (and have been for most of Christian history) a minority among Christians?

3) What do you mean by "and in a very negative way?"

Aaron
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?

Lefein:
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.

Once again, your response is evasive. The fact that you consider my view "gross and horrid" is beside the point.

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.

1) I don't think there is anything "beautiful" about existing in a disembodied state after death and being fully aware of the fact that you are "dead," "unclothed" and "naked." There's nothing "beautiful" about being forced to consciously exist indefinitely in a state of existence for which one was not created. We were created to live in an embodied state; to consciously exist in a disembodied state would, in one sense, be less than human.

2) What about those who consider reincarnation a "beautiful" belief? Christ never explicitly denies it, either. And what about those who believe that men will become gods themselves one day and have wives with whom they will produce billions of spirit-children who will one day become gods themselves and that this process will continue for all eternity? The Mormons no doubt consider this a "beautiful" belief, and Christ never explicitly denies it, either.

3) I think it's beautiful that at the resurrection God is going to bestow a glorious, immortal existence upon those who are existentially dead so that they will be "equal to angels" and will not be able to "die anymore." I think every good and comforting idea you have concerning our post-mortem existence is stolen from the truth of the resurrection. Perhaps without fully realizing it, I think you've taken that which is beautiful about the resurrection (e.g., being alive and immortal, being "equal to angels," being "always with the Lord," etc.) and tried to apply it to something that is necessarily inferior to it.

(Again, to be continued when I have more time)

by **Lefein** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:14 pm

Enough.

As I've said; You're more than welcome to your cessation of existence.
I however will not, and God forbid it occur on my part. God forbid it thoroughly, this violation of my Life in Him.

by **Nottirbd** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:16 pm

Not to disrupt a perfectly useless disagreement (as I cannot see any way in which it influences in the most infinitesimal way "how then shall we live") but I think you're both being too literal (lifein regarding Time, and Aaron regarding Space).

I would refer you both to the first two chapters of Lewis "problem of pain". Aaron, Lewis describes very adroitly the idea of the Numinous, and how our apprehension of disembodied spirit is the very foundation of our religious instinct. But yes, he also predicates our apprehension of "self" and "other" as definitionally dependent on boundaries - "bodies" if you will, in some sense. But the ether that separates "heavenly bodies" may be of such wholly different cloth that we would call it something immaterial in our lexicon.

And Lifein, even our feeble science instructs us that time is literally an illusion - to light (at whose speed time stops) there is no time. So this whole notion of soulsleep is to me a canard - it's nonsense question based on our own misapprehension of reality (as space and time dependent minds).

Like asking "How much does Blue weigh?", just because it's a sentence doesn't make it sensical.

by **AUniversalist** » Thu May 19, 2011 3:37 pm

Nottirbd wrote:Not to disrupt a perfectly useless disagreement (as I cannot see any way in which it influences in the most infinitesimal way "how then shall we live") but I think you're both being too literal (lifein regarding Time, and Aaron regarding Space).

Our feeble science instructs us that time is literally an illusion - to light (at whose speed time stops) there is no time. So this whole notion of soulsleep is to me a canard - it's nonsense question based on our own misapprehension of reality (as space and time dependent minds).

Like asking "How much does Blue weigh?", just because it's a sentence doesn't make it sensical.

I agree, and I insist Blue weighs 30 ounces.

The reality is time and space only affect this physical dimension and has no cause to exist in the spirit.

by **Nottirbd** » Thu May 19, 2011 4:06 pm

Dude, I roll metric, so it's .82 kilos, but as brothers in Christ we can't let that come between us...

by **Aaron** » Thu May 19, 2011 4:20 pm

Lefein:
It almost seems to me Aaron, that you are far more afraid of being in the presence of God without your physical body between you and Him, than I am of being separated from Him by the thorough gulf of Existence vs. Non-existence.

It's not that I fear being in the presence of God without my physical body between me and him; it's that I don't believe there even is a conscious "you" or "me" apart from our being constituted by a physical body. Thus, I don't think we can be in the presence of God in a conscious state of existence without being constituted by a body. You have, I believe, taken something that's only true of our post-resurrection state and applied it to when we are dead.

So in one sense it's true that I have no desire for some part of me to consciously exist in a disembodied state. This is partially because I don't think it's even possible given the way in which God has created us and defined our existence. To say the "spirit" that departs from us and returns to God at death (i.e., our life) is conscious after we die is, to me, like saying our body that returns to the dust is conscious after we die. The former is no more true than the latter. Neither our life nor our body is conscious after death; it is we who are conscious when we are constituted by a living body with a functioning brain.

But it's also true that I have no desire for some part of me to consciously exist in a disembodied state because this part of me would not be completely and fully me; it would no more be "me" in the truest and most meaningful sense than a "reincarnated" person could be "you" in the truest and most meaningful sense. "I" cannot consciously exist as myself in a divided, incomplete state. It is "I" - Aaron R. Welch - who wants to be in the presence of my God; it's not my desire for some disembodied part of me to be in the presence of God. Was Adam in the presence of God when the "breath of life" departed from him and he returned to the dust of the earth? No. It may be said that his "life" was in the presence of God, but Adam's life was something that Adam possessed while he was alive, and which made him a "living soul." It cannot be identified with Adam himself. That which returned to God when Adam died was not "Adam," and that which is to return to God when I die will not be "Aaron." So I have just as little desire to exist in a disembodied state as you desire to exist in a reincarnated state.

It is very simple, I refuse to limit God's work and Life-giving as being relegated to a physical body, or a physical event far flung into the future; I refuse to limit God's work to the material, and I refuse to limit my God-given existence to the material expression of it.

God's work and life-giving isn't "relegated to a physical body." If it was, then those who are dead could not receive life. But God's work on our behalf is not confined to our existence in a physical body. And God's work isn't limited to the material, because he has power over our mental disposition, thoughts and feelings as well, and will restore our mind as well as our body at the resurrection.

My belief that I will never, by no means whatsoever be wholly separated from God on my part or on His part; by existence/non-existence or otherwise; does not undermine the Resurrection, neither does it undermine the hope of Christians.

I think your view does undermine the resurrection, for the resurrection is the means by which a dead human being is restored to a living existence. To say we do not cease to exist as living beings is to say we have no need for a resurrection. But when we die we do cease to exist as living beings, and in this sense we are existentially separated from God by "the last enemy, death." But death is doomed to be destroyed. Christ is going to destroy death - and thus destroy all existential separation from God - when he raises the dead. And when death is destroyed we will "always be with the Lord." Until then, we cannot "always be with the Lord." Death prevents this from being a reality. When you die, your existence as a living being ceases. That's why those who are dead are in need of being raised by God (i.e., restored by God to a living existence).

My view is that The Living are made alive by Life, who are alive now and will be made more alive in the 'aions' to come, and that those who are (a)"dead" will be made alive also.

I think you're confusing existential life with the kind of life that people receive by believing on Christ. People are existentially alive for as long as the organized matter by which they are constituted and given existence as living beings is alive. But the bodies by which we are constituted and given our existence as living beings do die. And when our bodies die, we die. That's why people are said to be "dead" in Scripture after their bodies die. When our bodies die, our life leaves us. We become cut off from a living existence. That's the whole point of the resurrection: the dead are in need of being restored to a living existence such that they "cannot die anymore" (Luke 20:36).

a; Which I do not believe is cessation of existence, or those who have ceased to exist. The prodigal son did not 'cease to exist', when he was 'dead to his father' and having come home was 'alive again'. He was spending his time in the swine trough when he was 'dead'.

To be "dead" in any sense is to be cut off from some sort of "life." The "life" from which the prodigal son was cut off was, I believe, relational, not existential. He was cut off from his relationship and fellowship with his father. In this state of relational estrangement from his father he was considered "dead." It was their relationship that needed to be restored and healed, and which was restored and healed when he "came to himself" and returned to his father. But this is not the only death of which Scripture speaks.

When the bodies by which we are constituted as living beings are cut off from life, we are cut off from a living existence. But being dead and unconscious doesn't mean we cease to be reconciled to God or cease to be "in Christ," because our being reconciled to God and "in Christ" is something that defines us whether we exist as living, organized beings or not.

But if you were to argue that a person who has ceased to exist as a conscious, living being cannot be considered reconciled to God, I would respond that a person who has ceased to exist as a conscious, living being cannot be considered relationally estranged from God, either. It would be like arguing that a person who has ceased to exist as a conscious, living cannot be considered "happy." That would be true, but they can't be considered "unhappy" either. They are neither happy nor unhappy. So in whatever sense one believes that those who have ceased to exist as conscious, living beings cannot be considered reconciled to God, they cannot be considered estranged from God either. If a person who no longer exists as a conscious, living being cannot be considered reconciled to God by virtue of their no longer existing as a conscious, living being, then by virtue of their not existing as a conscious, living being they cannot be considered estranged from God. But again, I believe our being reconciled to God and our being "in Christ" is a status that defines us whether we exist as living, conscious beings or not.

Your arguments that my view undermines this or that belief or hope is nothing new. I'm sure many Eternal Damnationalists have said that to Universalists when they talk about the greater hope; "Your view undermines the hope of believers". But like the Universalist I can return the sentiment; "Your view undermines the greater hope of believers."

The only difference is that I believe Universalists - as well as those who believe the dead are actually dead - have the Bible on their side. Just as the Bible doesn't teach "eternal damnation" so I do not find a shred of Scriptural evidence that the hope of believers is that we remain alive and in a conscious, disembodied state after death. The hope of the believer is that, through Jesus, God is going to raise the dead, both the just and the unjust.

No matter how much you say otherwise, cessation of an existence is separation.

Even if we are existentially separated from God when we cease to be living beings it does not follow that we are separated from his love. In order to be "wholly separated" I believe we would have to be separated from God's love. But ceasing to exist as a living, conscious being cannot separate us from God's love. It is not something that we need fear or be horrified by, because not only will this existential separation be temporary, but we will we be completely unaware of it. To fear it while we're alive is essentially to fear non-existence, which is something you've told me you do not fear. So if you don't fear non-existence, why do you seem so disturbed and horrified by the thought of being temporarily existentially separated from God? You won't even exist as a conscious, living being to be aware of it; by the time you are conscious again, the separation will have ceased. So why is it so disturbing and horrifying to you?

You seem to think that this would mean God or Jesus broke a promise to you that you would never cease to exist as a living, conscious being. But where do we read of this promise in Scripture? As I've shown repeatedly, it can't be in John 10-11. Even according to your view, the "death" to which Christ refers in John 11:26 (for example) can't be existential death, because this would mean that some are existentially dead and in need of being given existential life, and that people are in danger of becoming existentially dead before they become believers. But no human being (or even animal) can, according to your view, existentially die, because they are by virtue of their creation "immortal souls." And if the "death" of which Christ speaks in this verse is not existential death, then the "life" which is the opposite state of this "death" cannot be existential life.

So where is it promised in Scripture that we will never cease to exist as living, conscious beings?

You can't get any further from the I AM than to "not-be".

Well then before we existed we were as far from the I AM as we could possibly be. But that didn't stop God from loving us and bringing us into existence, did it?

And as for the argument that one was not separated from God before they existed; I'd be more inclined to believe in pre-existence than I am of cessation of existence. I'd also be inclined to wonder if they were not indeed separated from God, as per the traditional view of Salvation, but that certainly never involved cessation of existence.

Do you believe human beings have eternally pre-existed in a living, conscious state, or not? If not, then it means you believe there was a time when we were as far from the I AM as we could possibly be.

If all of your hope rests in being physically embodied, you can have it.

My hope rests on God, who through his Son is going to restore both of us to a living existence after we die.

I'll believe what I am convinced is better, hope better, and receive better, which is not what you insist to be better for me, neither your interpretations, nor your theology. I'll go to Heaven, come back again, and be resurrected.

Did the individual, Stephen, go to heaven when he died? We're told that "Stephen" prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Did the Lord receive Stephen when he died, or Stephen's spirit? Perhaps you think "both," but that's not what Luke tells us. Luke tells us that Stephen "fell asleep" as he was being stoned to death. If "Stephen" = Stephen's spirit, then Stephen's spirit fell asleep as it was being stoned to death. Is this what you believe? That a spirit named "Stephen" was stoned to death and "fell asleep?" We're then told that some devout men "buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him." If "Stephen" went to heaven when he died, how did these devout men bury him? Did they bury a disembodied spirit?

What about David? Peter declared that David "both died and was buried" (Acts 2:29). This makes perfect sense if David was constituted by his body, and existed wherever his body was. But if "David" = David's spirit, then David's spirit died and was buried. And Paul declared that David "was laid with his fathers and saw corruption" (Acts 13:36). Again, this makes perfect sense if "David" was constituted by his body. When David's body "saw corruption," David saw corruption, because he was constituted by his body. But if "David" = David's spirit, then David's spirit "was laid with his fathers and saw corruption." Does that not sound just a little absurd to you, and suggest that you perhaps have a mistaken view of human nature and identity?

Our views are far too polarised on this issue to come to any concise compromise. You'd have me literally cease to exist. I'd have you exist in the presence of God continuously and have the resurrection too. It is no wonder I prefer the latter idea.

I don't want you to cease to be a living, conscious being any more than I want you or anyone to have to physically die. But in order for you to avoid the former I think you'd have to avoid the latter. Maybe we'll be among those who will not "sleep." Only God knows. But I do know that when our body dies, we die, and that when our body returns to the dust (assuming we will remain dead long enough for this to happen) we return to the dust. This view (i.e., that we are constituted by our physical body and exist wherever our body - or its remains - exist) is both Biblical and consistent with human experience and observation.

But according to my view, if you die you will not remain dead forever. On the "last day" you will be restored to a living, conscious existence and, with death the last enemy destroyed, you will "always be with the Lord." But this presupposes that you will not "always be with the Lord" until after the resurrection. That is, we will not "exist in the presence of God continuously" until we have been resurrected. To argue that this would be true even if there was no resurrection is, I believe, to undermine the truth of the resurrection itself.

by **Aaron** » Fri May 20, 2011 5:13 am

Nottirbd wrote:
Not to disrupt a perfectly useless disagreement (as I cannot see any way in which it influences in the most infinitesimal way "how then shall we live") but I think you're both being too literal (lifein regarding Time, and Aaron regarding Space).

If it's such a "perfectly useless disagreement" to you, I'm not sure why you would even bother expressing your own disagreement with what we're saying.

It's like saying, "What you two are disagreeing over is irrelevant; here's my opinion on the matter." Is your disagreement with us less "perfectly useless" than our disagreement is with one another?

All truth is God's truth, so all truth is important in some way. I mean, regardless of which of us is correct (or at least closer to the truth), isn't it more advantageous to believe what is true (or closer to what is true) rather than to believe what is false (or further from the truth)? Especially when what is being discussed and disagreed on is what we think God has chosen to reveal (or not reveal) in Scripture. If Scripture has something to say about it, then I think it's important enough to discuss and debate. Even if the truth at which we're seeking to arrive forms only the "skin" of that great body of truth revealed in Scripture, it is, to me, important enough to invest time in discussions like this one. And this thread was, after all, created by someone who thought this an important enough topic to discuss, and it's still active because people still consider it to be an important enough topic to discuss (and disagree on).

As far as influencing how we live, a belief in the resurrection is, I believe, highly influential to how we live; it's the hope to which we are "born again" and in which we are saved, and it is the hope that purifies us. If, as I've argued, the hope of the resurrection is undermined or overshadowed by the belief that man remains existentially alive in a "disembodied state" after he physically dies, then that, to me, is a big deal.

I would refer you both to the first two chapters of Lewis "problem of pain". Aaron, Lewis describes very adroitly the idea of the Numinous, and how our apprehension of disembodied spirit is the very foundation of our religious instinct. But yes, he also predicates our apprehension of "self" and "other" as definitionally dependent on boundaries - "bodies" if you will, in some sense. But the ether that separates "heavenly bodies" may be of such wholly different cloth that we would call it something immaterial in our lexicon.

I have read and have in my possession Lewis' Problem of Pain, and actually skimmed through the first two chapters right after reading your post to refresh my memory. Interesting stuff, and I believe Lewis makes some good points. But he also seems to presuppose some of the very things that I've been trying to show are erroneous, such as that the word "soul" refers to some part of us that can be divorced from our body after death to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. And while that's fine for those who already see things his way, it won't do for those who don't. And whether or not it's right to presuppose such things gets close to the heart of the discussion on this thread.

Regarding the "Numinous," I disagree that "apprehension of disembodied spirit is the very foundation of our religious instinct." The word "numinous" simply describes the power or presence of a transcendent/supernatural entity (i.e., a deity), which tends to invoke dread and/or awe from those who experience it. The uncanny entity or power need not be understood as a "disembodied spirit." And the mere fact that men have, since ancient times, believed that ghosts and evil spirits haunt this world and have experienced a corresponding dread and awe at the thought of being in the presence of such entities does not in the least prove that such beings have any actual existence. Even if God created us with a "religious instinct," man is just as inclined to mistake that which has no actual existence for the actual object and source of his "religious instinct" and "numinous feelings" as he is to be religious. It may be natural for man to believe in some sort of transcendent/supernatural entity, but it is also natural for man to have a distorted view of the "supernatural world" he instinctively believes in, or which he instinctively dreads and stands in awe of. Rather than view the object and source of his numinous feelings as a benevolent being or beings (such as the God revealed in Scripture, or his angels), man tends to view the supernatural world as amoral at best, and hostile and malevolent at worst, since nature often seems this way. He has filled it with evil spirits and demons and ghosts (etc.), not because such entities have any actual existence, but because man, left to himself, becomes "futile in his thinking." Just as man is naturally inclined to want to worship the creature rather than the Creator, so he is naturally inclined to fear or dread - and then to seek to control - the malevolent or amoral forces that he believes influence his life. Perhaps man has from ancient times believed in a disembodied existence for himself after death because of a fear of death and a desire for his conscious existence to continue. Or perhaps it was to fill the void that necessarily exists when he has little or no divine revelation to guide him; because the object and source of his "numinous feelings" has not revealed itself to him in a clear light (think of Abraham's state before Yahweh called him), he instinctively fills the void himself with ideas that originate in his own mind.

And Lifein, even our feeble science instructs us that time is literally an illusion - to light (at whose speed time stops) there is no time. So this whole notion of soulsleep is to me a canard - it's nonsense question based on our own misapprehension of reality (as space and time dependent minds).

How did you come to apprehend reality so well as to be so confident that "soulsleep" is a "canard?" Did science inform you of this? Or Scripture? Or both? And do you believe our mind/consciousness is just as dependent on our brain as it is on "space and time?" If not, how did you come to find this out?

You say "time is literally an illusion." I've been taught that time is relative, but there seems to be a big difference between saying time is relative and that it's an "illusion." There certainly seems to be sequence in our experience and thoughts, and I'm not inclined to believe it's merely an illusion.

by **AUniversalist** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:05 pm

You say "time is literally an illusion." I've been taught that time is relative, but there seems to be a big difference between saying time is relative and that it's an "illusion." There certainly seems to be sequence in our experience and thoughts, and I'm not inclined to believe it's merely an illusion.

Only in Einsteinian Physics, the theory of relativity is time relative; however, in Quantum physics time does not exist. Even Einstein said time was an 'illusion'.

In March 1955, when his [Einstein's] lifelong friend Michele Besso died, he wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

There is far more interesting articles than this, but it should start you on your road to discovery. Things are not what you think they are.

by **Aaron** » Sat May 21, 2011 12:14 pm

Hi Craig,

You wrote:

Only in Einsteinian Physics, the theory of relativity is time relative; however, in Quantum physics time does not exist. Even Einstein said time was an 'illusion'.

In March 1955, when his [Einstein's] lifelong friend Michele Besso died, he wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

There is far more interesting articles than this, but it should start you on your road to discovery. Things are not what you think they are.

Thanks; I'll try to check out the article when I have more time.

Until then, is it your view that there is actually no sequence to our existence and thoughts, and no change or motion? Or do you believe there is sequence and change and motion, but that the concept of "time" has nothing to do with these things? If so, perhaps we're just talking about two different things when we speak of "time." When I think of "time," I can't help but think of sequence and change and motion; they seem inseparable from the very concept of "time." So for me, to say "time is just an illusion" or "time doesn't exist" is to say that there is no sequence to our existence, and no change or motion. But that sequence and change and motion are part of our existence, is, to me, self-evidently true. To say otherwise would, to me, be like saying we don't really exist at all.

So what do you mean when you say that time is only an illusion, or that time doesn't exist? I'm just not sure how one could believe this and convey what they're thinking in a way that is at all consistent with their belief. If someone were to ask you, "When do you think we are going to be raised with a spiritual, immortal body, and when do you think we'll be conscious of our having been raised with a spiritual, immortal body," wouldn't you reply, "When we die"? And wouldn't this mean that the resurrection is something that happens sometime after something else has happened?

Moreover, in a previous post on this thread you said:

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.

If you believe time doesn't exist and that it's only an illusion, it seems somewhat inconsistent to use the past tense or to speak of something as being in the past, present or future (as you do above). If it's true that time doesn't exist and is only an illusion, then evidently it's an illusion we cannot escape, especially when we're trying to convey something meaningful and coherent to someone else.

But that you don't really think time doesn't exist or is just an "illusion" seems evident from the following:

AUniversalist:
Time is a created entity composed and existing in nature and physics, Spirit is and is not bound by nature or physics, therefore once a the soul returns to it's elements (dust and spirit), time is not a constraint and no time passes between death back to life.

If time is a "created entity composed and existing in nature and physics," wouldn't it be just as real and existent as nature and physics are? If time is only an illusion, then wouldn't nature and physics be only an illusion as well? And if so, what does this mean to you?

Moreover, if the above is true (or even if time isn't real and is only an "illusion"), I think it's ultimately irrelevant to my view. For I believe the human individual - the person - is constituted by a physical body, not by that which isn't "bound by nature or physics." Even if it were true that the "spirit" which is represented as leaving us at death isn't "bound by nature or physics," this "spirit" is not us. It's something a person has and which (in a sense) belongs to them while they're alive, and is something which departs from them and returns to God at death. And according to Scripture, a dead person is always said to be wherever their dead body is or was, and not where their "spirit" went after they died. But why is this? Answer: Because the person was thought to be constituted by their physical body. Thus, when a person's body died and returned to the dust, the person was thought to die and return to the dust. If a person's body was in a tomb, the person was thought to be in a tomb. And when our "body" is "redeemed" and "transformed" (or "fashioned anew") at the resurrection of the dead (Rom 8:23; Phil 3:21), it is the person who is said to be "raised," which (again) implies that we are constituted by our body.

by **Aaron** » Sun May 22, 2011 3:02 pm

Hi Craig,

Ok, I got a chance to read the article. Very interesting stuff! The following are just a few excerpts on which I'd like to comment:

"The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic."

And according to physicist Carlo Rovelli:

The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it’s only a macroscopic effect. It’s something that emerges only for big things.

and

Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales—a bit like the concept of ‘surface of the water,’ which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms.

If Simon Saunders - a philosopher of physics - feels that "by far the best thing to do is declare oneself agnostic" in regards to the "meaning of time," then wouldn't agnosticism be a wiser position for a layman (such as myself) to take than to conclude that time doesn't exist? And while physicist Carlo Rovelli doesn't consider time to be a "fundamental property of reality," he still considers it a "macroscopic effect" which "emerges at large scales." And that's enough for me, because the scale at which time "emerges" and is an "effect" (according to Rovelli) is the scale at which human persons exist as living, conscious beings. So even if time does not exist at the atomic or subatomic level (and is, in that sense, an "illusion"), it's still just as real to us as the "surface of the water" is. So even if the concept of "time" (in the sense of sequence, duration and "past, present and future") is only meaningful on a "macroscopic level," that's the level at which we live and experience reality.

Moreover, Paul certainly seemed to think the resurrection was a future event that would take place "in time":

"For this we declare to you by a word from 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" (1 Thess 4:15-17).

Here we have a sequence of events that involves change and motion. And what's more, the future event described by Paul in this passage and elsewhere (e.g., in Acts 24:15, 1 Cor 15:50-54 and Phil 3:20-21) is evidently something that is to take place while people are still alive and "left" on the earth. That is, mortals will still be inhabiting this planet when Christ returns to destroy the last enemy, death. Rather than dying, these people will simply be "changed" at the same moment as the dead are raised (i.e., when the "last trumpet" sounds). And there is both a "before" and an "after" to this "change." Before this change, the living will be mortal; after this change, they will be immortal.

by **AUniversalist** » Tue May 24, 2011 5:43 am

Hello Aaron,

I have been studying Physics as a past time and it was one of my favorite topics in school. I ended up really enjoying Quantum physics and the understanding of what is beyond our physical universe both in the mega-macro and micro universe. Relativity, Einsteiniam Physics, applies to the macro but not the mega-macro or micro universe and understanding the Spirit is neither mega-macro, macro or micro universe, it is quite easy to understand the spirit is not affected nor limited or even constricted by time (which belong only to the macro universe).

Concerning the resurrection.

This is what happened 2000 years ago.

Matthew 27:52-53 "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many."

John quotes Jesus in Revelation 1:8 saying, ""I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Not much is talked about the fact the resurrection is not a single event in the future, but an event consistently happening both in past, present and the future. the one who is presently come, who was come, and who is to come.

Paul says in 1 Thess 4:15-16 "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." Well, we already know that in Matthew 27:52-53, that the dead in Christ already rose and appeared to many in the city after His Resurrection. He being the First Fruits, then them who were dead and now we who are alive (after the Resurrection) will also be caught up with the Lord to meet Him when we physically die. The dead in Christ have already risen.

Paul rebukes those who said that the resurrection of the dead has already come to past (meaning there is no future resurrection for those presently living) in 2 Timothy 2:17, "who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some." This is not to say Paul didn't understand that the Resurrection of the Dead started to take place in the past, only that that it doesn't stop there and our hope presently is in the resurrection of the dead. (The reason is because our Salvation depends upon it).

Paul admits this also in Ephesians 2:5-7 "When we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Meaning that at His Resurrection and afterward, we (speaking of the entire body of believers) have been and continue to be raised up with Him and seated with him in heavenly places; we have been caught up together both past present and future in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

The church has known this, you can go to many Christian funerals the pastor and the church says this and has not paid attention to what it means nor understand it. When your loved one dies, they are ALREADY in Heaven! The only way that can be... is to be resurrected; and what resurrected body they are in? A spiritual body.

Therefore, there is no soul sleep, never has been. When the soul dies, it has been resurrected into heavenly places. That is why we have a great witness in the clouds, that is why repeated throughout the Scriptures we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, why heaven rejoices, and why All are alive to Him.

The only caveat to soul sleep doctrine is if one believes there are some (those who aren't considered in Christ when they died) who have to wait until His reign is over to be raised (Revelation 20:5-6).

by **Aaron** » Sat May 28, 2011 1:15 pm

Hi Craig,

You wrote:

I have been studying Physics as a past time and it was one of my favorite topics in school. I ended up really enjoying Quantum physics and the understanding of what is beyond our physical universe both in the mega-macro and micro universe. Relativity, Einsteiniam Physics, applies to the macro but not the mega-macro or micro universe and understanding the Spirit is neither mega-macro, macro or micro universe, it is quite easy to understand the spirit is not affected nor limited or even constricted by time (which belong only to the macro universe).

What do you mean by "the spirit?"

When used in reference to man, it's my view that the Hebrew and Greek words translated "spirit" can mean different things. If by "spirit" one means that which is said to depart from man at death, I believe this is simply his breath (i.e., the "breath" which gave Adam life after he was formed by God). This is the "spirit" that is common to all "living souls," whether human or animal (Gen 6:17; 7:22; Eccl 3:19), and which Job said was in his nostrils (Job 27:3). Without this "spirit" or "breath" a person's body is said to be "dead" (James 2:26). At death this "spirit" is said to "return to God who gave it" since, according to the Genesis narrative, it was breathed into Adam's nostrils by God after Adam was formed from the dust (and I believe it can be said to enter each person when they take their first breath and begin breathing on their own). Nothing more returns to God when a person dies than that which God is said to have breathed into Adam's nostrils to make him a "living soul." Since this "spirit" or "breath of life" wasn't a conscious, thinking entity before it was breathed into Adam's nostrils, I don't think it is a conscious, thinking entity when it departs from man at the time of death. Nor do I think it is some kind of ethereal substance that leaves us at death to either await a future resurrection or be immediately clothed with a new body.

The words translated "spirit" can also refer to the mental/emotional aspect of a human person (e.g., one's mental disposition and feelings), but when used in this sense I don't think these words refer to that which was breathed into Adam's nostrils to make him a "living soul," and which was breathed out of Adam when he died. When Paul, for example, speaks of God's spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Rom 8:16), I don't think he's talking about something that is in our nostrils, and which we breathe out when we die. This isn't the "spirit" that is said to "return to God who gave it," and without which the body is said to be dead. The "spirit" with which God's spirit bears witness is our mind (1 Cor 2:11, 16), or perhaps more specifically, our mental disposition (Eph 4:23). And our ability as human beings to think and feel and reason and reflect and understand depends on our having a functioning brain (which itself depends on our having the "breath of life" in us). But if we were created by God in such a way that we can do these things just as well without a brain as we can with one, why then did God create us with a brain at all?

Concerning the resurrection.

This is what happened 2000 years ago.

Matthew 27:52-53 "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many."

While I believe it would've been natural for the Gospel writer to speak of the resurrection of these saints by saying that their bodies had been raised (since I believe the saints were constituted by their bodies), isn't it your view that the bodies of those who have fallen asleep return to the dust? Or do you think the Gospel writer had in mind the immortal, glorified bodies of the saints? But if that's the case, then (according to your view) wouldn't these bodies have been raised when the saints died? Or do you believe this has only been true after Christ's resurrection, and was not true before? If so, what do you think was the state of those who died before Christ's resurrection? What do you think was the state of the saints referred to in Matt 27:52-53 before their bodies were raised after Christ's resurrection?

John quotes Jesus in Revelation 1:8 saying, ""I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Not much is talked about the fact the resurrection is not a single event in the future, but an event consistently happening both in past, present and the future. the one who is presently come, who was come, and who is to come.

How does Jesus' being the one "who is, who was and who is to come" entail that the resurrection of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere is a past, present and future event? I don't see how this verse entails such a view any more than it entails that Jesus' own resurrection is a past, present and future event (which is, of course, absurd).

Moreover, Paul reveals in 1 Cor 15:51-53 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 that, rather than "sleeping," some people will still be alive when the dead are raised at the "last trumpet," and that these people will undergo a miraculous "change" to make them immortal. So if the words in Rev 1:8 mean the resurrection of the dead is a past, present and future event, then I think it would also mean the change of the living into immortal beings is a past, present and future event as well.

Paul says in 1 Thess 4:15-16 "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." Well, we already know that in Matthew 27:52-53, that the dead in Christ already rose and appeared to many in the city after His Resurrection. He being the First Fruits, then them who were dead and now we who are alive (after the Resurrection) will also be caught up with the Lord to meet Him when we physically die. The dead in Christ have already risen.

Paul wrote as if the events described in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15 were future in his day, not as if they were already past or present and ongoing. The "coming of the Lord" and his descent from heaven "with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God" seems to have been understood by Paul to be a future event, at which time the "dead in Christ" would be "raised" and those who were "alive" and were "left" (or "remained") would be "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." That is, the coming of the Lord/his descend from heaven and the resurrection of "those who are Christ's at his coming" was considered by Paul to be just as much a future reality at the time he wrote as the change of the living and their being caught up together with those raised to meet the Lord in the air. There is no indication that Paul understood the coming of Christ to raise the dead or the resurrection of "those who are Christ's at his coming" to be a past or present/ongoing event. It really makes no sense at all to me to say that Christ's descent from heaven is a past, present and future event, or that this particular coming of Christ takes place every time a believer dies. And based on Paul's own words I'm confident that this was not his view. I also think Paul would've agreed with the words spoken by the angels to Jesus' disciples as Jesus ascended into heaven ("This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" - Acts 1:11) as well as with Peter when he declared that Jesus would "remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets" (Acts 3:21). Do not both of these verses refer to the same coming of Christ of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15:23 and 1 Thess 4:13-18? If you don't think they do, then to what "coming of Christ" do you think they refer?

Also, Paul says nothing about those who would be alive at this time as having to die before they could be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Why would Paul even speak of those who would be "alive" and "left" as not preceding "those who have fallen asleep" if the living were going to die/fall asleep as well, and thus be included among those who would need to be raised? Paul is clearly trying to draw a distinction between two different categories of people: those who would be dead at Christ's descent from heaven, and those who would still be alive. One group of people (the dead) would be in need of a resurrection, while the other group of people (the living) would need to be "changed" from mortal to immortal in order for death to be destroyed and swallowed up in victory. And both the resurrection of the dead (which is a change from perishable to imperishable) and the change of the living (from mortal to immortal) is said by Paul to take place "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." But I think Paul would've written very differently if he'd believed that the "last trumpet" sounded at every person's death.

Now, it seems to me that the only way Matthew 27:52-53 could possibly be the fulfillment of what Paul describes in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15 is if the "bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep" were raised sometime after Paul wrote 1 Thess and 1 Cor. But this seems unlikely for at least three reasons.

First, it seems implausible that the fulfillment of such a highly significant and anticipated prophetic event would only be mentioned once in the entire NT, by only one Gospel writer. It also seems implausible that the fulfillment of such a highly significant and anticipated prophetic event would be referred to in Matthew's Gospel in such an incidental way. These two obscure verses in Matt 27 read almost like a footnote in the narrative. If the resurrection of the bodies of these saints was in fact the fulfillment of Paul's words concerning the resurrection that was to take place at Christ's coming, then such a brief allusion to the resurrection that was to take place at Christ's coming (without even mentioning Christ's coming itself) - and that by Matthew's Gospel alone - is, I believe, inexplicable. But if (as I believe) the resurrection of the saints referred to in these two verses was a restoration to a mortal existence (like the resurrection of Lazarus) rather than a resurrection like Christ's, the incidental nature of its mention by Matthew makes a good deal more sense.

Second, based on the few details provided by Matthew in these two verses, it seems reasonable to understand the resurrection of the bodies of these saints to have taken place shortly after Christ's death rather than years later (i.e., sometime after Paul wrote). It can, I think, be reasonably inferred that the earthquake which opened the tombs of these saints took place when Christ died. But is it reasonable to believe that the tombs remained opened - and the dead bodies/remains of the saints who had fallen asleep remained exposed - for more than 20 years after Christ's death? Is it not more reasonable to believe that the opening of the tombs was simply preparatory to a resurrection that took place shortly after Christ's resurrection on Sunday, and that the saints were restored to a living existence (as Lazarus had been) and appeared to people in Jerusalem as a miraculous sign that served to further authenticate and confirm Jesus' Messiahship? But if the resurrection of these saints took place shortly after Christ's resurrection on Sunday morning then it could not have been the fulfillment of the resurrection which was still future in Paul's day, and which was to take place at Christ's coming on the "last day," at the sounding of the "last trumpet."

Third, Matthew tells us that "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised." We aren't told that all of the saints who were dead were raised. But wouldn't it be more reasonable to understand Paul's expression "the dead in Christ" and "those who are Christ's at his coming" to include, at the very least, all who had died in faith up to this time (including the OT men and women of faith described in the letter to the Hebrews)? For Matthew to say "many of the bodies..." would make sense if the bodies that were raised were those that belonged to believers who had recently died, and which (like Lazarus' body) had not undergone a significant degree of decomposition. Understood in this way, the word "many" would be relative to those saints who had recently died before Christ's death (it could also be understood as a contrast with the small number of people throughout redemptive history who are said to have been miraculously restored to a mortal existence). But even this would've been a relatively small group of people, and would be consistent with the fact that it is mentioned in only Matthew's account (and briefly at that), and goes unnoticed in the rest of the NT.

Paul rebukes those who said that the resurrection of the dead has already come to past (meaning there is no future resurrection for those presently living) in 2 Timothy 2:17, "who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some." This is not to say Paul didn't understand that the Resurrection of the Dead started to take place in the past, only that that it doesn't stop there and our hope presently is in the resurrection of the dead. (The reason is because our Salvation depends upon it).

For Paul, to say that the resurrection of the dead had already taken place would've been like saying that the "coming of Christ" referred to in 1 Cor 15:23 had already taken place, and that Christ had already descended from heaven "with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God." It would've been like saying that the "last trumpet" had already sounded and that death had already been "swallowed up in victory," or like saying "this lowly body" had already been fashioned anew to be like Christ's "glorious body." For Paul, the raising of the dead to immortality by Christ was a future event (Acts 24:15) that would conclude Christ's reign and consummate redemptive history (1 Cor 15:21-28; 50-55), not something that had already begun in the past and was then taking place in the present. To say otherwise is, I believe, to either intentionally or unintentionally perpetuate the same error with which Hymenaeus and Philetus were guilty of leading people astray in Paul's day.

Paul admits this also in Ephesians 2:5-7 "When we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Meaning that at His Resurrection and afterward, we (speaking of the entire body of believers) have been and continue to be raised up with Him and seated with him in heavenly places; we have been caught up together both past present and future in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

I don't think Paul's speaking of the same resurrection in Ephesians 2:5-7 as he is in 1 Thess 4:13-18. In Ephesians 2 the resurrection of which he speaks is clearly a past event and present reality for believers, whereas in 1 Thess 4 the resurrection is confined to a time that was yet future when Paul wrote, and which was to take place when Christ descended from heaven "with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God." There is no indication that this descent of Christ from heaven and the sounding of the last trumpet had already taken place before Paul wrote to the Ephesians. Moreover, it is evident from Eph 2:1 that the resurrection of which Paul is speaking is a resurrection from being "dead in the trespasses and sins" in which Paul said his readers "once walked." This "death" is most certainly not the death that Jesus died and from which he was raised. Nor is it the death that Paul had in view when he spoke of "the dead in Christ" being "raised first." It is two entirely different "deaths" - and thus two entirely different "resurrections" - that Paul has in view in these two passages. One refers to the radical change in our spiritual condition and status when we believe the gospel of Christ and pass "from death to life" (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14-15), while the other refers to the future restoration of a living, embodied, conscious existence to those who have physically died. One can have "passed from death to life" in the sense of which Christ speaks in John 5:24 and still be in need of being raised in the sense that Paul speaks in 1 Thess 4:13-18.

The church has known this, you can go to many Christian funerals the pastor and the church says this and has not paid attention to what it means nor understand it. When your loved one dies, they are ALREADY in Heaven! The only way that can be... is to be resurrected; and what resurrected body they are in? A spiritual body.

I agree that if our loved ones were already in heaven it would mean they had already been raised with their immortal, spiritual body, but I don't see any evidence that Paul or any other inspired author believed that the resurrection to immortality had taken place for anyone except Christ. Insofar as Christians believe that those who die are already in heaven, I believe they have strayed from the truth of Scripture. And I think that, for the most part, those Christians who declare that those who have died are already in heaven know full well what they're saying and what they believe. They believe we have "immortal souls" and that those in heaven exist in a conscious, disembodied state, and that they will remain in this disembodied state until they are clothed with an immortal body at the time of the resurrection. I don't think most Christians have any problem at all believing that people go to heaven as disembodied spirits after they die before they are later raised with glorified, immortal bodies.

Therefore, there is no soul sleep, never has been.

I'm a little puzzled by your position. What do you think was the state of those who died before Christ's resurrection? Do you believe people simply existed in a conscious, disembodied state before Christ's resurrection and then were raised with a glorified, immortal body after Christ's resurrection? Or do you believe people were being raised with a glorified, immortal body at death even before Christ was raised? If the latter, then this would seem to conflict with Matt 27:52-53, which you believe refers to the "dead in Christ" of 1 Thess 4:16.

When the soul dies, it has been resurrected into heavenly places. That is why we have a great witness in the clouds, that is why repeated throughout the Scriptures we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, why heaven rejoices, and why All are alive to Him.

Concerning the expression "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses" I wrote on another thread (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1084&p=15086&hilit=surrounded+cloud+of+witnesses#p15086)

While this verse does refer to those who had died in their faith (i.e., the OT saints mentioned throughout chapter 11), I see no reason to believe that the author was teaching that this "great cloud of witnesses" was conscious and watching the living from heaven (or wherever one thinks the dead are). The word translated "witnesses" is martus, and does not suggest that the dead believers referred to in ch. 11 were spectators, but rather that they are testifiers who, by their lives of faith, are examples to us of how we are to live in this world. But these "witnesses" ("martyrs") no more literally "surround" us than Abel literally "still speaks" (Heb 11:4; cf. Heb 12:24). The imagery is figurative, and not to be understood literally. Even those who believe these dead men and women of faith are still conscious don't believe they literally "surrounded" every believer to whom the author was writing. Again, the language is figurative.

by **Paidion** » Sat May 28, 2011 6:45 pm

Student of the Word wrote:The dead in Christ have already risen.

... their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17,18

From this verse, it would appear that Hymenaeus and Philetus, held a similar or identical belief to that of Student of the Word. Or am I out in left field here?

by **atHisfeet** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:29 am

AUniversalist wrote:Hello Aaron,

I have been studying Physics as a past time and it was one of my favorite topics in school. I ended up really enjoying Quantum physics and the understanding of what is beyond our physical universe both in the mega-macro and micro universe. Relativity, Einsteiniam Physics, applies to the macro but not the mega-macro or micro universe and understanding the Spirit is neither mega-macro, macro or micro universe, it is quite easy to understand the spirit is not affected nor limited or even constricted by time (which belong only to the macro universe).

Concerning the resurrection.

This is what happened 2000 years ago.

Matthew 27:52-53 "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many."

Not saying that this isn't speaking about physical graves and the physically dead, but I believe that (even if it is) it bears witness to that which is taking place spiritually "at the appearing of Christ" (in us). For, as I see it, the "grave" from which "the dead" need to be redeemed (and that which is "opened" at "His resurrection" (again, "in us") is "the body of thsi death", of which Paul spoke.

John quotes Jesus in Revelation 1:8 saying, ""I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Not much is talked about the fact the resurrection is not a single event in the future, but an event consistently happening both in past, present and the future. the one who is presently come, who was come, and who is to come.

AMEN! HE is THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE!

Paul says in 1 Thess 4:15-16 "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." Well, we already know that in Matthew 27:52-53, that the dead in Christ already rose and appeared to many in the city after His Resurrection. He being the First Fruits, then them who were dead and now we who are alive (after the Resurrection) will also be caught up with the Lord to meet Him when we physically die. The dead in Christ have already risen.

As stated above, I believe that "the dead in Christ" are not those buried in physical graves, but those who have "fallen asleep in Jesus" (not yet knowing Gor or Jesus Christ whom He sent, nor the power of His resurrection). I believe that both those who "are alive" and those who "sleep" remain (both being physically alive)... and it is "the dead" (whom Jesus called "the tares") who "rise first" for "all were dead" and those who "are alive" have already passed from death unto life... they are already "chidlren of the resurrection".

So I can't say, necessarily, that "the dead in Christ have already risen" for "the dead" are not "risen" until they come to know "the power of His resurrection" (every man in his own order).

That being said, I think it is important to note that we were "quickened together" with Christ "even when we were dead in sins" and it because we were "baptized into His death" that we shall also "walk in the newness of life" (having also been raised with him). So it seems a bit more complicated then just seeing things as a series of events, esepcially if we connect those event to our faith, rather than to God's grace.

Paul rebukes those who said that the resurrection of the dead has already come to past (meaning there is no future resurrection for those presently living) in 2 Timothy 2:17, "who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some." This is not to say Paul didn't understand that the Resurrection of the Dead started to take place in the past, only that that it doesn't stop there and our hope presently is in the resurrection of the dead. (The reason is because our Salvation depends upon it).

WAS, IS and IS TO COME! Amen!

Jesus said: "That the dead ARE RAISED..."

The dead "are raised" at His appearing!

Christ in you, the hope of glory!

Paul admits this also in Ephesians 2:5-7 "When we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Meaning that at His Resurrection and afterward, we (speaking of the entire body of believers) have been and continue to be raised up with Him and seated with him in heavenly places; we have been caught up together both past present and future in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Amen!

The church has known this, you can go to many Christian funerals the pastor and the church says this and has not paid attention to what it means nor understand it. When your loved one dies, they are ALREADY in Heaven! The only way that can be... is to be resurrected; and what resurrected body they are in? A spiritual body.

Amen!

Therefore, there is no soul sleep, never has been. When the soul dies, it has been resurrected into heavenly places. That is why we have a great witness in the clouds, that is why repeated throughout the Scriptures we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, why heaven rejoices, and why All are alive to Him.

I do not believe that the resurrection of the dead is tied to physical death at all, for those who believe. For those who believe "have passed" from death unto life and they "are" the great cloud of witnesses and a light unto the world.

The only caveat to soul sleep doctrine is if one believes there are some (those who aren't considered in Christ when they died) who have to wait until His reign is over to be raised (Revelation 20:5-6).

Ever consider the thousand years in relation to it being "twice told"? Being "one day" that is divided into "two days" (yesterday and today), wherein it is "the night" (which is "as yesterday, when it is past) that needs to be "finished" before "the rest of the dead" can live? Which is true of all of us, as we must all "enter into" THE DAY of the Lord? And we do so when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts (= "today", which is why Jesus told the thief on the cross: "TODAY, shalt thou be with me in paradise")?

by **atHisfeet** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:35 am

Paidion wrote:
Student of the Word wrote:The dead in Christ have already risen.

... their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17,18

From this verse, it would appear that Hymenaeus and Philetus, held a similar or identical belief to that of Student of the Word. Or am I out in left field here?

He did not say the resurrection is past. He said (as scripture states) that He (who IS the resurrection and the life) IS, WAS, AND IS TO COME!

The resurrection is not simply "an event"...

Jesus said: "I AM" the resurrection and the life.

The "dead" ARE RAISED "at the appearing of Christ".

Paul was not waiting for Jesus to return physically... but for Christ to be formed IN THEM.

by **Nottirbd** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:20 am

"how then shall we live?"

Do we study scripture to become better lawyers, arguing the niceties and nuances of interpretation?

"Beware the leaven of the Pharisees"

I recommend we all reread Titus 3. I just did. Studying scripture opens our heart to humility, and conviction; it teaches and instructs us how to live and to treat one another. Using Scripture as fodder for a Declamation Contest is like using the pages of the bible as rolling paper. We need to redeem the time, fellow laborers, and spend less time arguing at the doctrinal "water cooler" - the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.

by **atHisfeet** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:25 am

Nottirbd wrote:"how then shall we live?"

Do we study scripture to become better lawyers, arguing the niceties and nuances of interpretation?

"Beware the leaven of the Pharisees"

I recommend we all reread Titus 3. I just did. Studying scripture opens our heart to humility, and conviction; it teaches and instructs us how to live and to treat one another. Using Scripture as fodder for a Declamation Contest is like using the pages of the bible as rolling paper. We need to redeem the time, fellow laborers, and spend less time arguing at the doctrinal "water cooler" - the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.

I can certainly agree, when it comes to 'arguing', which is why I would prefer to simply agree to disagree than continue to go round and round with someone over the same things time and time again while getting nowhere. But that certainly doesn't mean that all discussions that take place at the doctrinal water cooler are useless does it?

Sometimes we come away learning and growing the most after we've come together with those who we might disagree with the most. At least that has been my experience. It's when we disagree, not when we agree, that we are forced to take a much harder look at the claims we make and the beliefs we hold, no? It's when we are forced to defend our beliefs that we are, sometimes, faces with looking at "facts" that might not have presented themselves before - with other, especially with those who see things the same way we do, right?

Isn't that one of the reasons we even participate in doctrinal discussions in the first place? To reason together? To let iron sharpen iron?

Is that not part of laboring in the field? Bringing in the harvest? If not, then what is and why are you here?

by **Aaron** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:04 pm

I can certainly agree, when it comes to 'arguing', which is why I would prefer to simply agree to disagree than continue to go round and round with someone over the same things time and time again while getting nowhere. But that certainly doesn't mean that all discussions that take place at the doctrinal water cooler are useless does it?

Sometimes we come away learning and growing the most after we've come together with those who we might disagree with the most. At least that has been my experience. It's when we disagree, not when we agree, that we are forced to take a much harder look at the claims we make and the beliefs we hold, no? It's when we are forced to defend our beliefs that we are, sometimes, faces with looking at "facts" that might not have presented themselves before - with other, especially with those who see things the same way we do, right?

Isn't that one of the reasons we even participate in doctrinal discussions in the first place? To reason together? To let iron sharpen iron?

Is that not part of laboring in the field? Bringing in the harvest? If not, then what is and why are you here?

Amen, sister!

by **Paidion** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:42 pm

If the dead in Christ have already risen, then the resurrection is past, is it not? If not, what is the difference between the two statements?

by **Nottirbd** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:09 pm

I think many arguments and discussions here are hugely valuable. It's delightful to learn and be sharpened by others who have enormous faith and knowledge of the word. But this thread has puzzled me for the very simple reason that I can't for the life of me tease out how it has the minutest impact on how I should spend tomorrow, or my money, or my time. I can't see how it helps to inform our actions or reveal God's character. Maybe I'm wrong, and this is a pressing question - please tell me how so? As I've gotten older I've just gotten incredibly aware of how short the time is, and we should always, from a doctrinal perspective, ask "is the game worth the candle?". I think we're called to hold one another accountable, as Paul suggests in Titus 3, to be wary of disputes whose outcome doesn't meet this minimal standard.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of people's time. Quite the contrary, we should be steel sharpening steel, and one if the sharpest questions we can ask is: is this a good and meaningful expense of our time and effort as Gods servants. It's not always a comfortable thing to ask, but it is a threshold question.

by **atHisfeet** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:25 am

Aaron wrote:
I can certainly agree, when it comes to 'arguing', which is why I would prefer to simply agree to disagree than continue to go round and round with someone over the same things time and time again while getting nowhere. But that certainly doesn't mean that all discussions that take place at the doctrinal water cooler are useless does it?

Sometimes we come away learning and growing the most after we've come together with those who we might disagree with the most. At least that has been my experience. It's when we disagree, not when we agree, that we are forced to take a much harder look at the claims we make and the beliefs we hold, no? It's when we are forced to defend our beliefs that we are, sometimes, faces with looking at "facts" that might not have presented themselves before - with other, especially with those who see things the same way we do, right?

Isn't that one of the reasons we even participate in doctrinal discussions in the first place? To reason together? To let iron sharpen iron?

Is that not part of laboring in the field? Bringing in the harvest? If not, then what is and why are you here?

Amen, sister!

Agreement... finallly... j/k :lol:

Thanks!

by **atHisfeet** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:41 am

Paidion wrote:If the dead in Christ have already risen, then the resurrection is past, is it not? If not, what is the difference between the two statements?

Craig can clarify, but I believe that when he said the dead in Christ has already risen, he was speaking about those who came out of their graves after Jesus' resurrection. Certainly that is not "all" of the dead, so doesn't make the resurrection of the dead "past".... except for those who have already attained unto it, right?

So, if the dead are resurrected "every man in his own order", as long as there are any who remain dead, the resurrection is not "past", right?

Though you may not see it as the same "resurrection", John speaks of someo who "have passed from death unto life", while others "abide in death".

1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

I think "that" is at the center of this whole argument over "soul sleep"... it begs the question(s).... who are "the dead" and "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?", right?

by **atHisfeet** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:07 am

Nottirbd wrote:I think many arguments and discussions here are hugely valuable. It's delightful to learn and be sharpened by others who have enormous faith and knowledge of the word.

Agreed!

But this thread has puzzled me for the very simple reason that I can't for the life of me tease out how it has the minutest impact on how I should spend tomorrow, or my money, or my time.

There are lots of online discussions that do not interest me in the least, though the they may cover what others see as important topics. The fact that I do not find them important doesn't mean that they are not or should not be considered such by someone else, does it?

I find the topic of soul sleep quite intriguing, myself. Mostly because I think it is very important to understand that Jesus "is" THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. I also don't think we can understand "what" the resurrection of the dead is if we do not understand who "the dead" are.

That doesn't mean that I want to spend night and day talking about it or spend hours upon hours making and replying to "book length" posts (as you can some of them in this thread have gotten). That's why I left the thread for awhile, and really only came back because I was asked to... though I am trying to not get reinvolved in such lengthy posts this time, if I can help it.

I can't see how it helps to inform our actions or reveal God's character. Maybe I'm wrong, and this is a pressing question - please tell me how so?

I think it helps answer the question: "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" with something other than "thou fool".

How can we even have hope for eternal life if we do not have hope in the resurrection of the dead?

Granted, one can hope in the resurrection even if they do not understand how the dead are raised up and with what body they come, but I don't think it's exactly pointless to discuss it or to want to understand it. Do you?

As I've gotten older I've just gotten incredibly aware of how short the time is, and we should always, from a doctrinal perspective, ask "is the game worth the candle?". I think we're called to hold one another accountable, as Paul suggests in Titus 3, to be wary of disputes whose outcome doesn't meet this minimal standard.

I agree, but it's not up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be important to someone else. It may be the case the importance of a particualr topic (to someone else) is hidden to me because there is something that I do not know... either about the topic itself or even the person to whom the topic is important. I know that this particular topic might be important to someone who has lost a loved one and what to know "where" they are or "what happened" to them when they died. May be important for other reasons, as well.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of people's time. Quite the contrary, we should be steel sharpening steel, and one if the sharpest questions we can ask is: is this a good and meaningful expense of our time and effort as Gods servants. It's not always a comfortable thing to ask, but it is a threshold question.

I don't disagree, entirely. I think if we are spending hours and hours dicsussing a topic with the same person/people and not really getting anywhere, then it might be time to rethink the benefit of the conversation... though there may be other factors involved as well... like new participants or those who may be reading but not partipating directly, etc. It may be for those resason alone that I might answer a post to someone who I know what's accept my answer but think an answer is warranted anyway, for others who might be reading.

But yeah, I think we also need to know when to say "enough is enough" and walk away.

by **AUniversalist** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:27 am

atHisfeet wrote:
Paidion wrote:If the dead in Christ have already risen, then the resurrection is past, is it not? If not, what is the difference between the two statements?

Craig can clarify, but I believe that when he said the dead in Christ has already risen, he was speaking about those who came out of their graves after Jesus' resurrection. Certainly that is not "all" of the dead, so doesn't make the resurrection of the dead "past".... except for those who have already attained unto it, right?

The resurrection has only occurred in the past for those already risen, but for those who are still alive we look forward to the resurrection of the dead since we have not yet died. So it is as Jesus said to John, "I am who was, who is at present, and who is coming."

There is quite a difference to those who say that resurrection is past (period), and that the resurrection is ongoing past, present and future. Paul rebuked those who said the resurrection was only a past event, meaning there is no hope for those who still live nor their children. Paul very well knew that our hope is only in the resurrection of the dead, therefore to say that it a past event, or does not exist, destroyed the entire faith principle of Paul's theology.

by **atHisfeet** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:02 am

AUniversalist wrote:The resurrection has only occurred in the past for those already risen, but for those who are still alive we look forward to the resurrection of the dead since we have not yet died.

But we have died... "in Adam"... in sin.

This is the problem (as I see it), that we connect "the resurrection of the dead" to that which is natural/seen. Therefore, we understand the resurrection of the dead as it pertains to a carnal truth, rather than a spiritual one. And even though most can see "the resurrection of the dead" after a spiritual application, they call the spiritual "metaphorical" or "symbolic" and still look to the natural application as "the truth". That, to me, makes looking at those things which are not seen while we are comparing spiritual things with spiritual kind of pointless. Who cares if one can be considered resurrected from the dead "metaphorically", if that's not what the resurrection of the dead is? This to me makes the spiritual (that which is NOT SEEN) the "type" and that is impossible - for it is those things that ARE SEEN that given "as examples" of those things that are unseen/eternal. Right?

AUniversalist wrote:So it is as Jesus said to John, "I am who was, who is at present, and who is coming."

Amen! And we PASS from death unto life "at His appearing". Right?

Again, this was "typified" in that which was seen when the Word was "made flesh" at "the end of the world/age". This, to me, typifies the end of "the age" of A CHILD (who is "under the law, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, our schoolmaster to lead us TO CHRIST, who is "the end of the law") and the adoption/placement OF SONS (redeemed from under the law, by the grace of God, through faith).... BY "the resurrection of the dead".

AUniversalist wrote:There is quite a difference to those who say that resurrection is past (period), and that the resurrection is ongoing past, present and future. Paul rebuked those who said the resurrection was only a past event, meaning there is no hope for those who still live nor their children. Paul very well knew that our hope is only in the resurrection of the dead, therefore to say that it a past event, or does not exist, destroyed the entire faith principle of Paul's theology.

AMEN!! But it is not just "past" and "future", but IS,WAS and IS TO COME. We seems to ignore the "is", even though when Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead in 1 Cor 15 it is written in the perfect and present tenses.

1 Cor 15:13 But if there be (present tense) no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen (perfect tense): And if Christ be not risen (perfect tense), then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

It is not just about the fact that Jesus rose (past tense) from the dead... but that CHRIST "is risen".

It is THE POWER ~of~ HIS RESURRECTION that Paul said he was striving to know.

That is how we "have part in the first resurrection".

Paul said: "But now is CHRIST risen (perfect tense) from the dead, and become (second aorist tense, middle deponent/active voice) the FIRSTFRUITS of them that slept (perfect tense)."

He is talking about CHRIST, not Jesus.

Jesus said: "I AM" the resurrection and the life.... those who believe HAVE PASSED from death unto life... and those who LIVE AND BELIEVE "shall never die".

The flesh is not counted. God makes this clear from the very beginning. Cain (the first born, which typifies the first/natural/carnal man) IS NOT COUNTED in the generations of Adam "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him." It is never the first born that receives the blessing when it comes to the blessings of God, for it is "the second man" who is "the Lord from heaven" (THE IMAGE OF GOD).

This is why God gave Seth as "another seed instead of Abel" (whom Cain, the first born / natural man slew), just as "the church" (the body of Christ) is given "in Christ's stead" to preach the gospel of our salvation. No?

We need to look to the Kingdom of God that is WITHIN, if we are to see "the coming of the Lord into His kingdom". No?

And shall we not "rule and reign with Christ" as kings and priests in the Kingdom of God once we "enter in"? And do we not enter in "by faith"?

This, as I see it, is "the resurrection of the dead" and "eternal life".

by **Caroleem** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:27 am

Wow, i have read most of these posts, some are a bit long and a lot of them are very interesting and eye opening. I can also see everyone's point of view. Thing is, i am more confused then ever now. :lol:

I truly don't know what to believe now.

Do you think that maybe God didn't make it clear on purpose? Maybe its just a mystery about what happens after we die, that's why scripture is vague and sometimes "appear" to contradict and plus the translations vary along with interpretations and that's why we all come up with different doctrines and theories. Plus we all seem to have different beliefs, like some of us are preterists, some are futurists, some believe in the rapture, some do not, and those that do, some are pre-trib, some are mid or post trib..and so on and so on. and so on........

I think all of our differences affect what we believe the scriptures are saying about what happens to us after death...and that is why we go in circles and never come to an agreement.

Wish i knew what happens, but frankly, i am clueless :cry:

by **AUniversalist** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:34 pm

Do you think that maybe God didn't make it clear on purpose?

Yes.

by **Confident Christian** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:05 pm

Hello all...

I could make a few points of interest here. By the way, as to this issue, I am very uncertain, but I personally tend towards some form of conscious state in between physical death and physical resurrection, which does not necessarily require the specific existence of an immaterial soul apart from the body (since God can, at the point of death, recreate the conscious mind of the person in a new metaphysical sense, perhaps using a different set of physical principles), and could provide some sort of opportunity for post-mortem development and improvement. A few points, however, that I can make in general (some of which may support either side) are as follows:

1) Near Death Experiences - These occur and appear to show some form of immediate conscious state after death, although they are highly subjective in terms of content and it seems to me that their nature depends on the person. The majority, however, are positive (and often imply UR, and possibly inclusivism), and I would postulate that these states are permitted by God to achieve benefit for the individual, in the ultimate end, despite not necessarily being a 'window' into actual reality. However, it would be odd for such states to be seen to exist if in fact no such post-mortem conscious state before the ultimate resurrection actually exists.

2) In reality, even if the state of the dead is utterly unconscious and unaware, this period of time may, if our consciousness just stops and starts without having any time lapse imparted into it, appear to be nothing so that, to us, such a period of time would not appear to exist. This would mean that it would seem that the post-mortem state (of resurrection in this case) starts immediately.

3) A rather puzzling passage (which seems to me to support post-mortem salvation regardless) is 1 Peter 3:19-20a:

19 After being made alive, [Jesus] went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built

Now, this implies a conscious state after death, unless this verse is metaphorical; however, it is possible that this state only began when Jesus 'descended', and may have then ended. However, it does not really make sense to conclude that it ended after 3 days, because this seems unnecessary (and, if time were not enhanced, hurried)

Alternatively, it is possible that the time of the reality of the dead is completely different to our spacetime reality, potentially (!) with more than one time dimension (even though this is fairly inconceivable). In this, Jesus' descent would be, perhaps, seen by each person at the point of death (due to some interesting form of time-travel, which may be possible for God, and with many time dimensions), although this is speculative.

Also, the very fact that Jesus preaches implies that He is conscious; this seems to imply that, at least after Jesus, since He had a human nature as well as God's nature, others who die exist in a conscious state.

4) A verse implying immediate 'paradise' of some form is from Jesus: (Luke 23:42-43)

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

The word for today, semeron seems to imply, according to http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons ... meron.html, "this (very) day)" or "what has happened today", and hence imply something immediately after death, especially as Jesus would soon return to life, and so a reference to being with Him seems to imply something immediate (and not physically bodily, since Jesus remained without a physical body during His time of death).

However, it is possible that the 'today' is just in the person's timeframe, referring to the perception that it will happen immediately since there will be no awareness in the meanwhile; this is supported by the reference to "come into your kingdom", although Jesus may not be replying directly to this point (maybe He is giving the person something even better, and more immediate, than he was expecting), and, potentially, the coming counts as Jesus' resurrection or ascension (although this is even more uncertain, and is not 'today').

Regardless, although uncertain, this at least hints on a conscious immediate post-mortem state.

5) However, the references to 'sleep' do imply a lack of consciousness, although they could also, since 'sleep' is used rather than nothingness, refer to a state in which consciousness (like dreams) could be experienced. In addition, 'sleep' may just be a metaphor for the death of a person's body, and so not represent the state before resurrection.

Anyway, I am uncertain about the issue, although I would consider a conscious state at present. However, both situations have positive implications, regardless of which one is true: "Soul-sleep" means that a person does not have to have running knowledge of the problems on earth in the meanwhile, while consciousness gives extra opportunity for post-mortem salvation (although this could also happen after the end judgement).

However, since the exact nature of eschatology is very uncertain to me at the moment, this assertion is very tentative.

Best wishes to all, CC

by **Confident Christian** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:12 pm

Caroleem wrote:Wow, i have read most of these posts, some are a bit long and a lot of them are very interesting and eye opening. I can also see everyone's point of view. Thing is, i am more confused then ever now. I truly don't know what to believe now.

Caroleem wrote:Wish i knew what happens, but frankly, i am clueless

Regardless of what happens, I think we can trust that it'll be better than we'd every imagined, and perfectly in line with God's action, in love and love alone. In addition, as for the not being clear, it is perfectly plausible that God, in love, has not chosen to yet reveal the truth on this manner, a decision that will ultimately be beneficial to all those who have been wondering, such as Caroleem.

by **Caroleem** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:44 pm

Confident Christian wrote:
Regardless of what happens, I think we can trust that it'll be better than we'd every imagined, and perfectly in line with God's action, in love and love alone. In addition, as for the not being clear, it is perfectly plausible that God, in love, has not chosen to yet reveal the truth on this manner, a decision that will ultimately be beneficial to all those who have been wondering, such as Caroleem.

That's exactly where i am at on the issue.

by **Caroleem** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:50 am

I found this interesting what Martin Zender says about what happens after death.
Its several articles on 3 pages, read them all if you can.

http://www.martinzender.com/clanging_go ... Issue7.pdf

Its basically along the lines of soul sleep. I am tending to believe in that direction now.

by **AUniversalist** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:40 pm

Paidion wrote:
Student of the Word wrote:The dead in Christ have already risen.

... their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17,18

From this verse, it would appear that Hymenaeus and Philetus, held a similar or identical belief to that of Student of the Word. Or am I out in left field here?

Already addressed this. Hymenaeus and Philetus believes the resurrection has already come and that the present and future generations have no hope in the Resurrection. I do not believe that, and rebuke such conclusion as Paul does.

The resurrection is what was, is, and is to come.

Website · by **Sword of ManticorE** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:19 am

I use to believe that we sleep until later when we are reserrected, until I found this (Matt 22:32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' So he is the God of the living, not the dead.")

by **AUniversalist** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:54 am

Sword of ManticorE wrote:I use to believe that we sleep until later when we are reserrected, until I found this (Matt 22:32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' So he is the God of the living, not the dead.")

This is a very difficult subject.

Do you believe that we are Body/Soul/Spirit? Do you believe that we are Living Soul? Do you believe in a physical resurrection, that our new bodies are immortal dust?

Website · by **Sword of ManticorE** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:14 pm

AUniversalist wrote:
Sword of ManticorE wrote:I use to believe that we sleep until later when we are reserrected, until I found this (Matt 22:32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' So he is the God of the living, not the dead.")

This is a very difficult subject.

Do you believe that we are Body/Soul/Spirit? Do you believe that we are Living Soul? Do you believe in a physical resurrection, that our new bodies are immortal dust?

I believe that we are body, soul and spirit and that when we die, our soul dies, our body rots and our spirit goes back to our Father. He made us spiritually in His image and we return to him in spirit. The parable of the prodigal son is a clue to my beliefs.

by **AUniversalist** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:50 pm

So you believe in immortal dust body resurrection?

Who is online