Exposition: Why "Absent From The Body/Present With The Lord" Doesn't Support Immortal Soul Doctrine

[bbyrd009]

look if you listen to these lawyers, you get what you got coming, imo
better find somebody got the "what is it?" if ya gno whats good for ya ah
ok peace

 

[Rockerduck]

Jesus gave the Apostle Paul revelations that He never told the other Apostle's nor did Jesus reveal in His earthly ministry. You can read the whole Bible from Genesis 1:1 to 1 Corinthians 15:50 and conclude you would have to die before going to Heaven. But
I Corinthians 15:51 changed what was previously believed. This is a revelation (mystery) from Jesus and the Apostle Paul revealed it. So if Paul says:

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 - So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

We must believe that this is a true statement, by direct revelation from Jesus Himself.

Do not forget that at the stoning of Stephen, He saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, then Stephen fell asleep, Absent from the body, present with Christ.

 

[marks]

Is there a third option to:
(1) in reserve for us later
(2) possessed by us now

What does it mean to "put on"? Be clothed upon? These metaphors are used elsewhere, what does it mean in other places? For instance, putting on the new man? Are you already a new creation? Are you to put off the old man, and put on the new?

Let's talk about what that means.

Much love!

 

[marks]

but srsly you dont still believe its a story about a guy who needed a literal meal so badly, from a brother he was not close to, that he would die if he did not get it, when their mom lived like right across the meadow lol
surely

You don't?

Some of the people I've known, this doesn't sound so far fetched!

Much love!

 

[marks]

It doesn't say "depart and INSTANTLY be with Christ", friend!

If a man says, "Can't work late, boss, I gotta leave work and have dinner with my wife"...does that mean he INSTANTLY appears in the restaurant the moment he drives out the company parking lot?

No, it doesn't say "instantly", and it doesn't say he won't be wearing polka dots either, does it?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The new earth will be that paradise. The resurrection occurs after Armageddon-the thief will be on earth after Armageddon, earth will be transformed into an Eden(paradise)during Jesus 1000 year reign while satan is abyssed.

So what would you suppose them meant, at that time, when they spoke of Paradise?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Is there a third option to:
(1) in reserve for us later
(2) possessed by us now

Why not receive the wording of the text? Present active, we have.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It doesn't say "depart and INSTANTLY be with Christ", friend!

If a man says, "Can't work late, boss, I gotta leave work and have dinner with my wife"...does that mean he INSTANTLY appears in the restaurant the moment he drives out the company parking lot?

When I depart work to be with my wife that's what I do.

And sloppy speech patterns in the modern American English doesn't mean the Bible is imprecise.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

No matter how you slice a cake, it doesn't turn into a fruit salad. Demanding that "today" is modifying "shalt be" causes grave disharmony of the Scriptures which say the dead know nothing, feel nothing, see nothing, hear nothing, plan nothing, do nothing, praise nothing, remember nothing, and have nothing to do with anything more in the land of the living.

However, if we allow "today" to modify "I say", absolute Scriptural harmony is preserved. In the Septuagint, "today" modifies the verb it precedes only 50 times, but modifies the verb it follows a whopping 170 times. So, the majority use of "today" not only demonstrates PLAUSIBILITY but also LIKELYHOOD....at an almost 4:1 ratio.

You are right about how you slice things not making it so, but it is you who has sliced in error--not just you, but most.

It is you who is trying to understand the things of God whose kingdom is not of this world and interpret them as if time was at all relevant. It's not. And therefore Paul introduced the need of "rightly dividing the word of truth." In other words, there can be no "shall be" beyond "today", for "today is the time of salvation" which is not counted as worldly, but as eternal.

This is key to everything you have been discussing. I am not discussing, but correcting. And you either see the difference between what is worldly and what is eternal, having eyes to see it--or you don't.

If you do see it then perhaps we can explore it further, if not, you have no business teaching or preaching about it, no more than Nicodemus should have taught about being born again. If nothing else, you should consider it true, that such things are only revealed in the fulness of time according to God, and the trajectory is almost always changed from what was once believed in error.

 

[ScottA]

What does that prove other than we've "come out from among them", and are "separate", and "touch not the unclean thing" no more, and have been "received unto Myself"?

Certainly not consciousness in death, in which Scripture says "the dead know not anything".

You're co-mingling a prophecy which refers to the 1,260 year reign of "gentile" papal " tyranny against the "Israel of God" church who belong to Christ and are, thus, "Abraham's seed"...but that's another discussion.

We're not talking about the nature of time - the focus is the nature of man and how time affects him.
Man is mortal, and for this time wears immortal clothes...

Then, time will find him - unless the Lord returns - lying naked, unclothed, without a body, resting in peace, dead and waiting for the resurrection...

Afterwhich there will be "time no more" when Jesus comes and calls him forth from sleep to Himself and he rises with an immortal, incorruptible body, and not a second sooner.


Once in a while I come across this teaching that all men preexisted before they were born. Let's ask Solomon if that's correct:

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 KJV​

[2] Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. (Why? Obviously, contextually, because the dead guy's through with life's misery - the living yet endure it)​

​

[3] Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.​

Now, if we've been around since Earth's foundations and not seen the evil controversy between Christ and Satan, our heads must have been firmly shoved way up our celestial badunkadunks.

I would be happy to answer all these questions. But you have first to understand "rightly dividing the word of truth", which you have failed to do correctly, mixing the things of this world with the things of God and eternity. Let me know.

 

[ScottA]

My friend, are we going for context or pretext? Because making "living" and "dead" refer to "spiritual life and death" is not within the context.

Verse 3 and 4 firmly establishes the context that "dead" is referring to "six feet under", as verse 3 says "go to the dead" and verse 4 speaks of beasts alive and dead...do beasts have anything to do with being "spiritually alive and dead"? Of course not.

Therefore, "the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything" means exactly what it says: we know we're going to die but those who've died don't have a thing going on in their head except worms taking up residence.

You don't understand.

The passage has its beastly (referring to the flesh) context and application in this world, but is also a parable of heavenly things.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?​

 

[Keiw]

"it will be like this and like that and like this" lol

sry couldnt help it

The new earth= Gods kingdom in full control forever, no more satan influences, all things made back to perfection.

 

[Keiw]

So what would you suppose them meant, at that time, when they spoke of Paradise?

Much love!

The comma in trinity translation= error'--Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in paradise= error
Truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.= correct

 

[bbyrd009]

The new earth= Gods kingdom in full control forever, no more satan influences, all things made back to perfection.

so you say, yes

 

[ScottA]

The comma in trinity translation= error'--Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in paradise= error
Truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.= correct

That is not unlike the false doctrine of Purgatory, which essentially claims that time does not stop at death but continues in some holding place until the end of time comes for all. But that is not how things work. Time is of the world (created) and when one passes on, their time has ended. Which is confirmed by Paul's statement, saying, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord", not mentioning any [time] in between, for there is none.

 

[marks]

The comma in trinity translation= error'--Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in paradise= error
Truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.= correct

I've heard this idea before, and thought about it. It's not the normal style to read it that way. But more than that for me is this,

Luke 23:42-43 KJV
42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief is saing, "When it happens, When You come into Your throne, remember me."

Jesus draws him closer in two ways, one, More than just remembering you, you will be with Me. And the other, We aren't talking about some nebulous time when this will happen, no, Today. Today you will be with Me in Paradise, the side of comfort in Sheol, the Unseen realm of the dead, in the heart of the earth.

Much love!

 

[Phoneman777]

What does it mean to "put on"? Be clothed upon? These metaphors are used elsewhere, what does it mean in other places? For instance, putting on the new man? Are you already a new creation? Are you to put off the old man, and put on the new?

Let's talk about what that means.

Much love!

I think the language is clear enough.

The Soul named Marks is comprised of a mortal body and the Spirit of life - when Marks dies, his mortal body will rot away, his spirit shall "return to God Who gave it" and Marks will cease to exist, naked, unclothed, without a body until the resurrection. If Marks comes up in the first resurrection, he'll be a Soul comprised of an immortal body and the spirit of life forever more.

 

[Phoneman777]

No, it doesn't say "instantly", and it doesn't say he won't be wearing polka dots either, does it?

Much love!

The absence of "instantly" means his absence here and his appearance there need not be instantaneous - and the rest of Scripture confirms it's not instantaneous, if we don't ignore it.

 

[Phoneman777]

When I depart work to be with my wife that's what I do.

And sloppy speech patterns in the modern American English doesn't mean the Bible is imprecise.

Much love!

Are you there with her the instant you depart work, or do you have to drive home? (Assuming you don't work from home with her there all day)

 

[marks]

The absence of "instantly" means his absence here and his appearance there need not be instantaneous - and the rest of Scripture confirms it's not instantaneous, if we don't ignore it.

Argument from silence . . .

Much love!