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

[marks]

No silence at all for those who don't stop their ears from hearing the truth

Actually an argument from silence is where the Bible doesn't say something that you do.

Much love!

 

[Phoneman777]

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.

Solomon says time is pretty relevant. A time for this, a time for that...that's what I've been saying: there's a time for us to be born, a time to die, and a time to lie dead awaiting the resurrection., which Paul's preference is to skip and just go on to be with Jesus in his resurrection body...but he himself knew that didn't happen at death, but "at the last trump".

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.

Now and today is the time of salvation, but we're discussing the resurrection, which is "at the last trump", not at death.

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.

All that has nothing to do with the truth that we don't go to be with Jesus at death, but in the resurrection in the end of time.

Did Job say he'd see his Savior without his flesh, or "in my flesh"? See? Yet another proof text showing we don't go to heaven and see Jesus at death, but when we inherit our new flesh and bone immortal body.

 

[Phoneman777]

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.

"Rightly dividing the word of truth" means properly separating portions of Scripture to teach a Biblical truth in a manner that preserves both textual and contextual harmony. Does the Immortal Soul crowd do that?

No, they deny that the Rich Man and Lazarus is parabolic and claim it literally teaches the wicked go straight to fiery punishment at death which is a total contradiction to 2 Peter 2:9 KJV which says God's chosen to "reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished".

In Luke 23:43 KJV, they deny that "today" not only can, but is more likely to be modifying "say" rather than "shalt be" in order to claim Jesus and the thief went to paradise that day, which contradicts Jesus' words Sunday morning: "...touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to My Father".

What have you offered by way of "refuting" my many plain proof texts which say the dead know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing, remember nothing, emote nothing, do nothing, praise nothing, and have nothing to do with anything under this sun? You present an argument about the relevance of time...

 

[Phoneman777]

Actually an argument from silence is where the Bible doesn't say something that you do.

Much love!

Bro, it's you who's implying the Bible speaks of Paul wanting to "depart and immediately be with Christ" when no such words have ever broken Biblical silence.

I'm saying "depart and be with Christ" has room for an interim of time lying naked, unclothed, without a body, resting in peace in the grave awaiting the resurrection, just as telling the boss at 5 you need to "depart and be with the wife for an anniversary dinner" leaves plenty of room for a drive home, shower, dressing to the nines, and escorting her to the fancy restaurant.

 

[Phoneman777]

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?​

I have verses 3 and 4 of Ecclesiastes 9 which speak of literal death, not spiritual death, of both man and beasts to establish a context for "death" in verse 5 as referring to the literal sense of the word.

What do you have to argue the context has verse 5 referring to "spiritual" death?

Absolutely nothing but inference governed by wishful thinking - a textbook example of wrongly dividing the Word of Truth.

 

[Phoneman777]

I think it is too, but to see the clarity, see how these words are used in the Scriptures.

If you don't wish to, I understand, it's up to you.

Much love!

Why do you keep insisting that "depart and be with Christ" is instantaneous when the Bible is completely silent on that?

 

[Phoneman777]

So I believe that the nakedness mentioned here is in reference to one being spiritually wretched. That’s the context.

Please select which of the following lines up with Pauline doctrine, and which is the height of theological redonkulousness:

"We who are in this mortal body groan for relief from life's burdens, but ...

[ ] ...not by the relief we'd find Resting In Peace in the grave naked, unclothed, without a body, awaiting the resurrection when we get to put on new, immortal clothes..."​

​

[ ] ...not by the relief we'd find in getting all spiritually wretched..."​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please select which of the following lines up with Pauline doctrine, and which is the height of theological redonkulousness:

"We who are in this mortal body groan for relief from life's burdens, but ...

[ ] ...not by the relief we'd find Resting In Peace in the grave naked, unclothed, without a body, awaiting the resurrection when we get to put on new, immortal clothes..."​

​

[ ] ...not by the relief we'd find in getting all spiritually wretched..."​

So Paul undoes what Revelation says?

 

[marks]

I'm saying "depart and be with Christ" has room for an interim of time lying naked,

It has room for a trip to Disney World followed by a meal at Spago's, but what it says is depart and be with Christ, not depart and eventually be with Christ.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

Now and today is the time of salvation, but we're discussing the resurrection, which is "at the last trump", not at death.

You tire me with your reluctance to take what is good, so I am just going to cut to the chase on some of the points.

What you do not understand--I have already told you, is that the last trump is not some heavenly horn blast, but is that last beat of ones dead heart before being born again of the spirit.

I am not going to keep repeating myself.

 

[ScottA]

All that has nothing to do with the truth that we don't go to be with Jesus at death, but in the resurrection in the end of time.

Again...you are not considering even what you are saying, and now I have to repeat myself. Answer for yourself then-- When is "the end of time" for you? Shall you live until the end of the age? No, but it will come for you when you pass from this world even if the world goes on. Which is why Paul said, "but each one in his own order." And if that is not enough for you to see your error--I leave you to it.

Did Job say he'd see his Savior without his flesh, or "in my flesh"? See? Yet another proof text showing we don't go to heaven and see Jesus at death, but when we inherit our new flesh and bone immortal body.

Does the flesh not die? Does time not stop? And by definition--what has come if time has stopped? You have not had the answers, but I have told you: Just as Job, all who die in the flesh see God for they have left the world and entered eternity, and in that instant those eye stare into His face and then go cold, the spirit returns to God and the flesh to the dust. And no, there is no glory dust in heaven--no flesh and bone, but spiritual manifestations of matter at will, which the flesh and bone of this world and those who hold to them will never see except in that cold dead stare.

I have said enough.

 

[bbyrd009]

imo if There is only One Immortal, Who dwells alone in unapproachable light wont sway him—or iow Yah Himself saying that he will not, ever, become an immortal—then what hope do you have here?

 

[ScottA]

I have verses 3 and 4 of Ecclesiastes 9 which speak of literal death, not spiritual death, of both man and beasts to establish a context for "death" in verse 5 as referring to the literal sense of the word.

What do you have to argue the context has verse 5 referring to "spiritual" death?

Absolutely nothing but inference governed by wishful thinking - a textbook example of wrongly dividing the Word of Truth.

No, but rather, Ecclesiastes 9:5 speaks of both the living and the dead.

But what is your point? The living are with the living, not the dead.

 

[Phoneman777]

So Paul undoes what Revelation says?

FOR WHICH STATE OF RELIEF DID SUFFERING PAUL AND HIS PEOPLE GROAN?

I say:
Paul's use of "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the intermediate state between clothed in a mortal body down here, and clothed a resurrection body up there: lying naked and unclothed without a body, resting in peace in the grave, awaiting the resurrection.

You say:
Paul's use of "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the state of being "spiritual wretched" which everyone agrees is synonymous with being unsaved, lost, separated from God.

A simple test to determine who's right and who's stubbornly clinging to cherished, refuted beliefs is to merely substitute "naked" and "unclothed" with each idea in bold italics to see which is most likely the desire of Paul and his people are groaning:

• "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be lying in the grave, RESTING IN PEACE, naked, unclothed, without a body, awaiting the resurrection, but being clothed upon with our immortal body that is no longer subject to burden..."

• "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not for that we would be in a restless, grievous, lost, separated from God, state of spiritual wretchedness..."

 

[Phoneman777]

No, but rather, Ecclesiastes 9:5 speaks of both the living and the dead.

But what is your point? The living are with the living, not the dead.

My point is the context establishes that Solomon's words in Ecc. 9:5 refer to literal death - so that when it says "the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything" it means just that: after we die, we don't know, see, hear, think, feel, remember, praise God, etc.

 

[ScottA]

My point is the context establishes that Solomon's words in Ecc. 9:5 refer to literal death - so that when it says "the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything" it means just that: after we die, we don't know, see, hear, think, feel, remember, praise God, etc.

Then you should read the rest of the gospel, for the whole account is not only of the dead who live and then die, but also includes the dead who die and live.

Do you not know that Solomon the son of David was a foreshadow of the Son of David who became Christ and is God?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

FOR WHICH STATE OF RELIEF DID SUFFERING PAUL AND HIS PEOPLE GROAN?

I say:
Paul's use of "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the intermediate state between clothed in a mortal body down here, and clothed a resurrection body up there: lying naked and unclothed without a body, resting in peace in the grave, awaiting the resurrection.

You say:
Paul's use of "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the state of being "spiritual wretched" which everyone agrees is synonymous with being unsaved, lost, separated from God.

A simple test to determine who's right and who's stubbornly clinging to cherished, refuted beliefs is to merely substitute "naked" and "unclothed" with each idea in bold italics to see which is most likely the desire of Paul and his people are groaning:

• "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be lying in the grave, RESTING IN PEACE, naked, unclothed, without a body, awaiting the resurrection, but being clothed upon with our immortal body that is no longer subject to burden..."

• "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not for that we would be in a restless, grievous, lost, separated from God, state of spiritual wretchedness..."

The Bible has a thing called homonyms within it. They are words that look and sound the same but they have different meanings based on the context. Obviously the word “naked” is used differently in 2 Corinthians 5:3 (naked referring to how a spirit would be without a spiritual body), then how the word “naked” is used in Revelation 3:17, and Revelation 3:18 (with nakedness referring to how one is wretched, etcetera). It talks about the shame of your nakedness in Revelation 3:18. When Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked, this was in reference to their knowing that they were physically naked (which was symbolic of their spiritual nakedness in having died spiritually) by disobeying God’s command. So the word “naked” does not always have the same meaning when we read it in the Bible. Words can have multiple meanings in the Bible. For example: The word “repent” has multiple meanings in the Bible. Here is an example of the variation of the word “repent.” It has different meanings based on the context (even in the same chapter). For if it did not have a different meaning, then you would have a contradiction in 1 Samuel 15. For we see God repenteth In 1 Samuel 15:11, and then in 1 Samuel 15:29 it says that the “Strength of Israel” will not repent (Note: Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:”).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

FOR WHICH STATE OF RELIEF DID SUFFERING PAUL AND HIS PEOPLE GROAN?

I say:
Paul's use of "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the intermediate state between clothed in a mortal body down here, and clothed a resurrection body up there: lying naked and unclothed without a body, resting in peace in the grave, awaiting the resurrection.

You say:
Paul's use of "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the state of being "spiritual wretched" which everyone agrees is synonymous with being unsaved, lost, separated from God.

A simple test to determine who's right and who's stubbornly clinging to cherished, refuted beliefs is to merely substitute "naked" and "unclothed" with each idea in bold italics to see which is most likely the desire of Paul and his people are groaning:

• "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be lying in the grave, RESTING IN PEACE, naked, unclothed, without a body, awaiting the resurrection, but being clothed upon with our immortal body that is no longer subject to burden..."

• "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not for that we would be in a restless, grievous, lost, separated from God, state of spiritual wretchedness..."

I can say that,

"The dog's bark could be heard all the way down the street, He scratched his paws against the bark of tree at the squirrel up in the tree (hoping to get the little guy)."​

As you can see there are two words spelled as "bark" but yet they have two different meanings. These are called homonyms and they do exist in the Bible.

For example: The “Word of God” can refer to two different things in Scripture and it depends on the context (of which one it is referring to). It can refer to the Living Word (Jesus) (Revelation 19:13), or it can refer to the Communicated Word (i.e. Scripture) (Luke 4:4).

Sons of God can refer to either a believer, or angels. It depends on the context. The same is true with the word “naked.” Yes, at the heart… “naked” means to be exposed, but it has different variations of meaning within the Bible (Which is determined by the context). You have to rightly divide based on the context (reading the chapter or chapters and looking at the surrounding words in the sentence), and by asking God for the understanding by His Spirit and in some cases, by looking at different translations.

 

[Phoneman777]

Again...you are not considering even what you are saying, and now I have to repeat myself. Answer for yourself then-- When is "the end of time" for you? Shall you live until the end of the age? No, but it will come for you when you pass from this world even if the world goes on. Which is why Paul said, "but each one in his own order." And if that is not enough for you to see your error--I leave you to it.

I heard an old preacher who heard it from an old preacher illustrate the difference between "the time of the end" and "the end of time".

In the old days, people didn't buy a packaged turkey for Thanksgiving - they'd buy one alive. He'd be given all the food and water he wanted, and put in a cage where he'd be safe from all danger and predators...but also so he couldn't run around and run all the fat off! The turkey could hardly believe his good luck - he'd think he was really living! But, he was living in the "time of the end".

And, when that fateful day came, the farmer would go out to the cage and snatch that fat turkey up and swing that ax down on the chopping block, thus had come to pass "the end of time". So, the "time of the end" is that period just before "the end of time" and most "Christians" are oblivious to the danger they're in, getting fattened up with junk food sermons false doctrines instead of Bible truth, treasuring up "wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.."

 

[Phoneman777]

The Bible has a thing called homonyms within it. They are words that look and sound the same but they have different meanings based on the context. Obviously the word “naked” is used differently in 2 Corinthians 5:3 (naked referring to how a spirit would be without a spiritual body)

Please, let's get something straight: the Bible only speaks of TWO, that is TWO, kinds of bodies that pertain to humans: the mortal and the resurrection. There is absolutely no mention of any "spiritual body" in death - what is said is that the mortal Body returns to dust, the Spirit returns to God as it was when It came forth from Him, and Soul which exists only as a consequence of the union of the two (Genesis 2:7 KJV) ceases to be.

The Rich Man and Lazarus is proven to be parabolic by this. The dead men mentioned therein are said to possess tongues, eyes, fingers, bosoms, etc. which no where in Scripture is established. If you have a verse which mentions your "spiritual body" idea which pertains during the intermediate state between wearing a mortal body in this life and a resurrection body in the next life, please post it.