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

[Keiw]

No it does not disprove the existence of the unperishable and eternal soul. Quite the opposite.

This does-- Matt 10:28-clearly shows the soul is not unperishable, but can be destroyed. But thinking that a soul is a spirit being of some kind is not what the bible teaches. Leviticus 7:14--the soul of flesh is its blood.

 

[Enoch111]

This does-- Matt 10:28-clearly shows the soul is not unperishable, but can be destroyed.

That word "destroyed" actually means eternal ruin, not annihilation. Eternal ruin = eternal damnation. Did Christ speak of eternal damnation? Absolutely.

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: (Mark 3:29)

 

[Enoch111]

Then again it doesn't matter what people think when it comes to resurrection. Everyone is going to be resurrected.

These are silly remarks. It does matter what people think about the resurrection. There is a resurrection unto life and a resurrection unto damnation. Should people be concerned about eternal damnation? Absolutely. Christ warned us about it many times.

 

[MatthewG]

No that is understandable, but what about those who choose to not care, @Enoch111. There will people who do not, was there not in Jesus's time as well?

 

[Keiw]

That word "destroyed" actually means eternal ruin, not annihilation. Eternal ruin = eternal damnation. Did Christ speak of eternal damnation? Absolutely.

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: (Mark 3:29)

Jesus said--Enter through the narrow gate, for cramped is the road leading off into life-FEW are the ones finding it. For MANY have entered the broad ans spacious path that leads to destruction)--not eternal life to suffer-destruction he said. Which goes along with the real truth God set before all=Deuteronomy 30:19= LIFE or DEATH.
Your bibles have errors like at Mark 3:29--There is no literal eternal suffering, it was symbolism. Gods justice scales prove it.

 

[Phoneman777]

Thanks for the explanation, I now understand your point.

However, there are factors that would change what is actually true. We know that Jesus told the thief on the cross not that he would see Him after "lying naked in the grave" for a time, but rather "today." Which ought to be enough said to support the idea that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

If we quote Jesus without the comma, it reads: "I say unto thee today shalt thou be with Me in paradise".

The entire Christian world demands "today" must modify "shalt be" when it can just as easily be modifying "say". The placement of the comma determines which is being modified:

"I say unto thee, today thou shalt be with Me..." means they went to paradise that day.

-- OR --

"I say unto thee today, thou shalt be..." is simply a promise said on that day that will be fulfilled in the future.

The evidence shows neither Jesus or the thief went anywhere that Friday.

Yet with further reasoning, we should also arrive at the fact that salvation being a matter of God and therefore not subject to the passing of time, a saved person would rather pass unto the Lord as He explained, saying "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." In this passage Jesus does not use the same narrative as is often stated in the Old Testament and also in the New, referring rather to Israel, that He would, "raise them up the last day." The difference, I submit, is that He would and did refer differently to the dead than He has to the living--"the dead in Christ" being Israel who died before salvation came, and "the living in Christ" being those who received eternal life as Paul referred to them, saying, "we who are alive and remain"..."alive" referring to the fact that they had or would pass from death to life even while in the flesh and remaining in the world.

Salvation no where provides for the saved immediately appearing in heaven with Jesus the moment they draw their last breath down here. To the contrary, Paul teaches us to comfort the bereaved saints with words of the resurrection, not words that those who die in Christ are immediately in joy in heaven, which if it were the case, would be the absolute best possible words with which to comfort someone, right?

"Hooray, unplug the tubes and turn off the chemo! Uncle Jim's cast off the old body of cancerous death and is now clothed in the immortal light of heavenly bliss!"

"Hallelujah, yesterday our beloved senile Mother may have not known who we are, but today she's gazing down from heaven, smiling, watching over all of us!"

Is that how Paul told us to comfort one another? No - only words of the resurrection.

There is perhaps more, but it's time for church service...so I submit that without the passing of time for those who die who are no longer of this world, but have already passed from death to life, the saying that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", is not only true, but does not say enough.

The saying is NOT true: Solomon says the dead "know not anything", "praise not the Lord", as well as countless other Scriptures that teach similarly. If the dead were in heaven, they'd know things, praise God, etc.

Paul is merely expressing his preference to not be "found naked" lying in the grave without a body...unless you prefer to argue that "naked" and "unclothed" refers to "spiritual nakedness", in which case I'd refer you to the OP where I prove that can't be the case.

 

[Phoneman777]

well, imo several things combine there to suggest that Paul is chiding, not encouraging; he uses "we" and not "i," and the point of the lesson never seems to get Quoted--seek to please whether present or absent--which, Paul being often interpreted to ppls destruction, and with an "i tell you" there in the middle, leads me to believe something closer to We are cock-sure, i say, and even wish that we were already dead, and partying with Jesus in heaven

If that were true, that begs the question: why didn't he tell us to comfort the bereaved saints with such words? "Don't cry - Aunt Judy and Uncle Benny might have just been planted 6 feet down, but they're are partying with Jesus in heaven".

He said comfort them with words that they will rise and meet Jesus in the air. If they were already with Jesus in heaven, what cause for celebration should there be in the resurrection? Such philosophy makes resurrection morning little more than a celestial fashion show where the saints already in heaven exchange their robes of disembodied light for an immortal body of light.

 

[Keiw]

If we quote Jesus without the comma, it reads: "I say unto thee today shalt thou be with Me in paradise".

The entire Christian world demands "today" must modify "shalt be" when it can just as easily be modifying "say". The placement of the comma determines which is being modified:

"I say unto thee, today thou shalt be with Me..." means they went to paradise that day.

-- OR --

"I say unto thee today, thou shalt be..." is simply a promise said on that day that will be fulfilled in the future.

The evidence shows neither Jesus or the thief went anywhere that Friday.

Salvation no where provides for the saved immediately appearing in heaven with Jesus the moment they draw their last breath down here. To the contrary, Paul teaches us to comfort the bereaved saints with words of the resurrection, not words that those who die in Christ are immediately in joy in heaven, which if it were the case, would be the absolute best possible words with which to comfort someone, right?

"Hooray, unplug the tubes and turn off the chemo! Uncle Jim's cast off the old body of cancerous death and is now clothed in the immortal light of heavenly bliss!"

"Hallelujah, yesterday our beloved senile Mother may have not known who we are, but today she's gazing down from heaven, smiling, watching over all of us!"

Is that how Paul told us to comfort one another? No - only words of the resurrection.

The saying is NOT true: Solomon says the dead "know not anything", "praise not the Lord", as well as countless other Scriptures that teach similarly. If the dead were in heaven, they'd know things, praise God, etc.

Paul is merely expressing his preference to not be "found naked" lying in the grave without a body...unless you prefer to argue that "naked" and "unclothed" refers to "spiritual nakedness", in which case I'd refer you to the OP where I prove that can't be the case.

You are right. The bible teaches Jesus was in the grave( Hades) 3 days, so he was not in paradise the first day. Only blind guides in their error filled translations mislead ones to think they were resurrected that first day. Some try to say paradise is in Hades, those are insane.

 

[ScottA]

If we quote Jesus without the comma, it reads: "I say unto thee today shalt thou be with Me in paradise".

The entire Christian world demands "today" must modify "shalt be" when it can just as easily be modifying "say". The placement of the comma determines which is being modified:

"I say unto thee, today thou shalt be with Me..." means they went to paradise that day.

-- OR --

"I say unto thee today, thou shalt be..." is simply a promise said on that day that will be fulfilled in the future.

The evidence shows neither Jesus or the thief went anywhere that Friday.

Again, there are other factors that answer your speculation and belief in something that does not exist. Time ended "today" for both Jesus and the thief on that day, as time does not exist in "Paradise"--"no shadow of turning." Meaning, it was not "future."

 

[marks]

[1] For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
(We know if our mortal body returns to dust, God has reserved for us an immortal, resurrection body.)

Actually, that's not what the passage says. It doesn't say God has reserved for us an eternal house, it says we have it now.

"We have", present tense, active voice,

[2] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
(Being subject to life's burdens in our mortal body "clothes", we desire to change into our resurrection body "clothes".)

Same tense/voice as "we groan".

In the same way "we groan", earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our eternal house, in that same way "we have" that eternal house now.

Do you believe this is true?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Paul's saying it's his preference to be absent from this body, skip the waiting for the resurrection body, and immediately put on his immortality. I should be our hope, as well.

Philippians 1:21-24 KJV
21) For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
22) But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
23) For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
24) Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Are you thinking that Paul was confused about this?

He seems to be presenting here his expectation that when he leaves his life in flesh, that he will be with Christ.

No?

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

Salvation no where provides for the saved immediately appearing in heaven with Jesus the moment they draw their last breath down here. To the contrary, Paul teaches us to comfort the bereaved saints with words of the resurrection, not words that those who die in Christ are immediately in joy in heaven, which if it were the case, would be the absolute best possible words with which to comfort someone, right?

"Hooray, unplug the tubes and turn off the chemo! Uncle Jim's cast off the old body of cancerous death and is now clothed in the immortal light of heavenly bliss!"

"Hallelujah, yesterday our beloved senile Mother may have not known who we are, but today she's gazing down from heaven, smiling, watching over all of us!"

Is that how Paul told us to comfort one another? No - only words of the resurrection.

That is not true, as it is written "you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world", and "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world", and again "they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

As for Paul not teaching the joy of paradise as coming immediately, many remained in darkness and in slumber just as it has been written of Israel, that the times of the gentiles should be fulfilled. But yes, we can rejoice. However, none gaze down from heaven except God. For just as we all came into the world and the clocks of our individual days and times began to tick after which came death--"but each one in his own order", time did not exist before or after, making the starting of time and the end of time different for us all--but there is no start or end of eternity. Meaning we all came into being from before the foundation of the world and arrive in paradise together. Which men have not imagined, but has always been true with God. This is the Light of Christ which shines into the world, cast as if through a prism out of eternity unto the ages, from which He and we who are His also return in like manner.

 

[marks]

Again, there are other factors that answer your speculation and belief in something that does not exist. Time ended "today" for both Jesus and the thief on that day, as time does not exist in "Paradise"--"no shadow of turning." Meaning, it was not "future."

Interpreting as "I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise", it makes "today" meaningless, like a tautology. Of course He's saying it today, not yesterday, not tomorrow.

Including "today" with "I say to you" de-emphasizes an unneeded word, including it with "you shall be with Me in paradise" gives it full value, and puts the emphasis on "today".

The thief said, "when You come into Your throne", Jesus replied, "today . . ."

Much love!

 

[marks]

Ephesians 2:5-6 KJV
5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

We don't "go to heaven" when we die, we open our eyes to see we are in heaven. We are already there. Only, we aren't walking by sight, which would be to see the heavenly, we are walking by faith, the heavenly unseen. Except in those times God may show us something.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

The saying is NOT true: Solomon says the dead "know not anything", "praise not the Lord", as well as countless other Scriptures that teach similarly. If the dead were in heaven, they'd know things, praise God, etc.

Paul is merely expressing his preference to not be "found naked" lying in the grave without a body...unless you prefer to argue that "naked" and "unclothed" refers to "spiritual nakedness", in which case I'd refer you to the OP where I prove that can't be the case.

What Solomon wrote is indeed true, as all who are born of the flesh into the world are as dead, and only praise the Lord when they have heard the good news of His coming. The passage does not mean that the dead are in heaven, for the dead do not enter heaven. Therefore the message from Christ is that we must be born again of the spirit of God. But these things are different for "the dead in Christ" and "the living in Christ", as the dead die first, but the living "by no means precede those who are asleep." For which I have said, we actually arrive in paradise together.

As for the meaning of being found "naked", it simply means to be found exposed without the Spirit which had come. This is the fulfillment of what is written, saying "the man of sin is revealed":

The KJV translates Strong's G444 in the following manner: man (552x), not translated (4x), miscellaneous (3x).​

1. a human being, whether male or female
   1. generically, to include all human individuals

 

[bbyrd009]

If that were true, that begs the question: why didn't he tell us to comfort the bereaved saints with such words? "Don't cry - Aunt Judy and Uncle Benny might have just been planted 6 feet down, but they're are partying with Jesus in heaven".

my response to that would be because that is not at all what he meant, since
No one has ever gone up to heaven…and
We do not yet know what we will become,
among other supporting reasons.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are right. The bible teaches Jesus was in the grave( Hades) 3 days, so he was not in paradise the first day. Only blind guides in their error filled translations mislead ones to think they were resurrected that first day. Some try to say paradise is in Hades, those are insane.

Amen.

I've shown people Revelation 2:7 KJV and Revelation 22:1-2 KJV prove that Paradise can be no where but UP because these verses say the Tree of Life is in the midst of Paradise and grows on both sides of the River of Life which flows from the Throne of God.

How anyone can read these verses and still insist that Paradise is down yonder is beyond reasonable explanation.

 

[Phoneman777]

Again, there are other factors that answer your speculation and belief in something that does not exist. Time ended "today" for both Jesus and the thief on that day, as time does not exist in "Paradise"--"no shadow of turning." Meaning, it was not "future."

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.

 

[Phoneman777]

Actually, that's not what the passage says. It doesn't say God has reserved for us an eternal house, it says we have it now.

Paul says he ain't putting on his immortal body until the "last trump":

1 Corinthians 15:52-53 KJV​

[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.​

[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.​

How many times does Paul have to tell us our pass and review is when Jesus comes, not now or even when we die?

"We have", present tense, active voice,

We're still wearing our mortal body...either show me the verse which says we wear both simultaneously or abandon this foolish notion that "we have" is anything other than "in reserve".

Same tense/voice as "we groan".

Yes, same tense, different connotation. "We have presently (in reserve)" a resurrection body, but "we groan" presently under the stress of vulnerable mortality. Again, you need to show us the verse which says we wear both simultaneously if your point is going to stand.

In the same way "we groan", earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our eternal house, in that same way "we have" that eternal house now.

And there's the proof we're NOT wearing both simultaneously - Paul says we're desiring to put on that which you're arguing we're already wearing. If we're desiring to put it on, then it's yet in reserve! Case closed, my friend!

 

[marks]

We're still wearing our mortal body...either show me the verse which says we wear both simultaneously or abandon this foolish notion that "we have" is anything other than "in reserve".

I'm just pointing out to you what the Bible says. It's up to you what you do from there. You can accept it or not. You appear to not.

So then what happens with your post when you understand I'm not saying we are wearing the heavenly house we already have?

I'm writing "have", which is what the Bible says, but you are reading "wear", which was not what I said, nor what the Bible says.

We need to be careful readers both to understand each other and to understand Scripture.

Much love!