Understanding you do not go to Heaven or to Hell, when you die.

[Angelina]

Please keep to the original topic. I have removed discussions relating to the Trinity which is also off topic. Please read Christianity Boards Policy regarding Trinity Discussion on this forum. Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB Posts/threads will be deleted and various members can/will incur warning points.

However, this topic will stay open. Please stick to this original topic.
Thank you
Angelina

 

[Phil .]

I didn’t see that, thank you for the link!

It’s discordant beliefs which are triggered (not “the worse of people”). It’s just part of the process of expression & dispelling discordant beliefs, and therein of course the discord (tension, stress, etc) subsides.

Imagine the pope shying away from an exorcism because “it brings out the worst in people”. Or Jesus shying away from lepers.

I’d happy field questions on the trinity, and address all discord which might arise conversationally. Just let me know if so.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You see, the false doctrines are so ingrained by repetition that Christians forget that "words mean things".

What Paul said is he was willing to be present with the Lord, just as one might say he's willing to be rich. Being willing for a thing is not the same as experiencing that thing.

Yes, but I don't believe Paul was parsing words here. The "willing" Paul referred to didn't mean he was questioning whether he would immediately be with the Lord or not. Rather, he was questioning whether he would be willing to die or not.

If Paul was "willing" to be rich, then he would've assumed that the money was available to him. If Paul was willing to be present with the Lord, then that would be immediately available to him if he died.

It's not like Paul was saying, I'd love to take a trip to the Caribbean, though he can't afford it. No, he was saying that he'd be willing to take that trip because *he can afford it,* but is relying upon the Lord's will for the time of his death.

In other words, Paul was saying that his death is synonymous with entering into God's presence. There is no other way to take it.

On Sunday at noon, Christians are "willing to be absent from the church pew and to be present at the Cracker Barrel" - but is a willingness to be there eliminate having to drive from church to the restaurant?

Likewise, Paul's willingness to be "present with the Lord" doesn't eliminate his (and our) need to lie "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, in the grave, dead, awaiting the Resurrection of the Just, which only at that time will Paul indeed be "present with the Lord".

Sorry, I can't agree with you. Paul appears to be assuming an instant transfer into God's presence upon death. You obviously don't have to agree.

Yea, it would make sense to assume some time could exist between death and entry into God's presence. But that would only be if there was reason to believe in a process that takes some time. I don't see that. And Paul's words give no hint of that.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yes, but I don't believe Paul was parsing words here. The "willing" Paul referred to didn't mean he was questioning whether he would immediately be with the Lord or not. Rather, he was questioning whether he would be willing to die or not.

He wasn't parsing or questioning whether he wanted to die, because he knew death would bring relief from "burdens" but tells us that's not the kind of relief we're interested in:

"For we who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, NOT FOR that we would be unclothed..."​

Paul's saying Christians groan for relief from their burdens, but NOT FOR relief by "resting in peace" in the grave, dead, without a body, unclothed, awaiting the resurrection, but to skip that and just go on to be clothed in our resurrection body in the presence of Jesus:

"...but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life".​

​

The Immortal Soul crowd is stuck on the "either/or" options of wearing our mortal clothes down here or our immortal clothes up there" because they never consider the "unclothed/naked" issue. Those who do are forced to admit that "unclothed/naked" is a THIRD OPTION: lying "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, dead, in the grave, resting in peace, awaiting the resurrection.

Paul simply says in verse 8 he "willing" aka "prefers" to take off his mortal clothes, skip lying naked and unclothed without a body in the grave resting in peace, awaiting the resurrection, and simply put on his immortal clothes in the resurrection at the Second Coming and be with Jesus...just like Christians on Sunday are "willing rather to be absent from the church pew and to be present at the Cracker Barrel".

 

[Randy Kluth]

He wasn't parsing or questioning whether he wanted to die, because he knew death would bring relief from "burdens" but tells us that's not the kind of relief we're interested in:

"For we who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, NOT FOR that we would be unclothed..."​

Paul's saying Christians groan for relief from their burdens, but NOT FOR relief by "resting in peace" in the grave, dead, without a body, unclothed, awaiting the resurrection, but to skip that and just go on to be clothed in our resurrection body in the presence of Jesus:

"...but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life".​

We "groan" to be endowed with immortality--we do not groan for relief from our burdens by dying. It is not just for "relief" that Paul is "groaning." Rather, it is to be "clothed" with immortality, as opposed to our current mortal life with all of its suffering.

Paul might indirectly be willing to die if only to be in the presence of the Lord. But clearly--nobody wants to suffer death! Paul's focus was not on relief from suffering but on the prospect of being present with the Lord, which is a step beyond relief from mortal suffering.

The Immortal Soul crowd is stuck on "either in our mortal body down here or in our immortal body up there" because they NEVER consider the "unclothed/naked" issue. Those who do are forced to admit that "unclothed/naked" is a THIRD OPTION: "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, dead, in the grave, resting in peace, awaiting the resurrection.

I don't like the term "immortal soul" because biblically, "immortality" is associated with our resurrected, glorified bodies. I prefer the term "eternal soul" because all human souls are eternal, whether judged or rewarded.

Why should I consider the "unclothed/naked" issue, if Paul is not concerned with that? He is concerned with entering into the presence of the Lord. That is what he is groaning about, which will, of course, relieve him of his present suffering. I believe he is stating that he will immediately be in the presence of the Lord, to be "clothed" with immortality later, at the coming of the Lord.

Paul never indicated being unclothed in death his concern if he would be in the presence of the Lord! But if he wasn't immediately going into the presence of the Lord, that might be a concern if he was still conscious? Or if he would enter into "soul sleep," that certainly would not have been his concern, since he would be unconscious!

Paul simply says in verse 8 he "willing" aka "prefers" to take off his mortal clothes, skip lying naked and unclothed without a body in the grave resting in peace, awaiting the resurrection, and simply put on his immortal clothes in the resurrection at the Second Coming and be with Jesus.

Well, you're welcome to your belief, brother. I don't think so, but we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Phoneman777]

We "groan" to be endowed with immortality--we do not groan for relief from our burdens by dying. It is not just for "relief" that Paul is "groaning." Rather, it is to be "clothed" with immortality, as opposed to our current mortal life with all of its suffering.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID

Paul might indirectly be willing to die if only to be in the presence of the Lord. But clearly--nobody wants to suffer death!

Paul didn't say we don't want the "nakedness" and "unclothedness" of death because "nobody wants to die" - Christians were killed "all the day long" for their faith, unlike the multitudes of lily-livered cowards today who give in to the devil at the drop of a hat. He said they didn't want the "unclothedness" and "nakedness" of death to relieve their burdens because as long as their without clothes, they're not wearing their immortal clothes in the presence of Jesus.

Paul's focus was not on relief from suffering but on the prospect of being present with the Lord, which is a step beyond relief from mortal suffering.

I never said that was his "focus" - what I said was he repeatedly stated that "naked" and "unclothed" was not the preferred solution to the problem of Earthly burdens.

I don't like the term "immortal soul" because biblically, "immortality" is associated with our resurrected, glorified bodies. I prefer the term "eternal soul" because all human souls are eternal, whether judged or rewarded.

"Immortal body" and "Eternal body" is pretty much synonymous.

Why should I consider the "unclothed/naked" issue, if Paul is not concerned with that?

Because "naked" and "unclothed" is the intermediate state between being "clothed in mortality down here" or being "clothed in immortality up there". Let's review:

1. Right now, we're wearing "mortal clothes" until we die.

2. In death, we wear "no clothes" lying "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, RIP, awaiting Jesus.

3. At the Second Coming, we rise with "immortal clothes" in the presence of Jesus.

Paul preached a 3 option state of affairs for us - not an "either/or" 2-option choice.

I believe he is stating that he will immediately be in the presence of the Lord, to be "clothed" with immortality later, at the coming of the Lord.

Your "belief" must include 3 options to be aligned with the passage.

Paul never indicated being unclothed in death his concern if he would be in the presence of the Lord!

No, but he mentioned "naked" and "unclothed" as a 3rd option "intermediate state" between mortality and immortality - if "naked" and "unclothed" ain't talking about the grave, what are they talking about?

But if he wasn't immediately going into the presence of the Lord, that might be a concern if he was still conscious? Or if he would enter into "soul sleep," that certainly would not have been his concern, since he would be unconscious!

Paul's love for Jesus was so great that he couldn't stand the thought of even lying unconscious in a cold, clammy grave. He wanted to be with his Savior ASAP, as we ought want.

Well, you're welcome to your belief, brother. I don't think so, but we'll find out soon enough.

Look, it's about end times deception.

If we believe the dead are conscious, then when "Grandpa Joe" or "Grandma Rose" appear to us at the foot of our bed and start "advising" us about "truth" we are going to be decieved, no matter how OSAS people might think they are, friend.

 

[Bill Judson]

Its clear in the Bible, you do not go to Heaven or to Hell, when you die, you lay in the grave and await the resurrection.

Soul sleep is heresy ya know

That's something various cults believe

 

[Hobie]

True. The dead but sleep. Lazarus was our example of that.

Even as a child it never made sense that my grandparents were thought to have died and gone to Heaven,only to be brought back to earth later?

Bummer switch of zip codes duuude!

Very true..

 

[Randy Kluth]

THAT'S WHAT I SAID

OK, make sense of your statement here:
"Paul's saying Christians groan for relief from their burdens, but NOT FOR relief by "resting in peace" in the grave, dead, without a body, unclothed, awaiting the resurrection, but to skip that and just go on to be clothed in our resurrection body in the presence of Jesus:
"...but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life"."

Your statement here appears to be saying that Paul is wanting to go find "relief from his burdens" by skipping death and nakedness by going straight to the presence of Jesus at the resurrection? And you find it absurd that Paul would die, and find himself immediately in the presence of Jesus, just because he does not yet have a resurrection body?

If I'm not getting it right, please put your statement in better form? My belief is that Paul would find Jesus' presence comforting immediately, even though he was not yet clothed, simply because he was in the presence of Jesus. The resurrection could wait.

Paul didn't say we don't want the "nakedness" and "unclothedness" of death because "nobody wants to die" - Christians were killed "all the day long" for their faith, unlike the multitudes of lily-livered cowards today who give in to the devil at the drop of a hat. He said they didn't want the "unclothedness" and "nakedness" of death to relieve their burdens because as long as their without clothes, they're not wearing their immortal clothes in the presence of Jesus.

Right, I don't think Paul is saying that. 1st, I never said Paul's view was that Christians were afraid to die. Nobody wants to die, but that has nothing to do with being afraid to die.

2nd, I don't see where Paul connected being "unclothed" with being away from the presence of the Lord? In fact, Paul said that dying was to come into the presence of the Lord for him!

So the fact he was "unclothed," or did not yet have his immortal covering, did not mean he would be away from the presence of the Lord. And this is what Paul was "groaning" for, to be in the presence of the Lord, despite still being naked with respect to the resurrection body.

What relieved Paul from his burdens was going into the presence of the Lord, and not having to suffer the blight of mortal existence any longer. Being naked, or without a glorified new body, was not Paul's concern, since that would come in its own time.

I never said that was his "focus" - what I said was he repeatedly stated that "naked" and "unclothed" was not the preferred solution to the problem of Earthly burdens.

Paul presented an option of relieving his burden by going "unclothed." He was willing to endure this in death because he would be in the presence of the Lord!

Obviously, anybody would rather go into the presence of the Lord and immediately be clothed with glory. But being that glorification had to wait, Paul still preferred to go into the presence of the Lord, having the burdens of this mortal existence removed.

"Immortal body" and "Eternal body" is pretty much synonymous.

Words mean what the user wishes them to mean in the context he uses them. For me, "immortal" and "eternal" are very different. Souls exist forever in Outer Darkness, but they do not experience what the Bible calls "immortality" for the saint.

Because "naked" and "unclothed" is the intermediate state between being "clothed in mortality down here" or being "clothed in immortality up there". Let's review:

1. Right now, we're wearing "mortal clothes" until we die.

2. In death, we wear "no clothes" lying "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, RIP, awaiting Jesus.

3. At the Second Coming, we rise with "immortal clothes" in the presence of Jesus.

I've been assuming such all along.

Paul's love for Jesus was so great that he couldn't stand the thought of even lying unconscious in a cold, clammy grave. He wanted to be with his Savior ASAP, as we ought want.

Paul didn't once mention being "unconscious." So that was definitely not an option he was entertaining, as you seem to be claiming.

Look, it's about end times deception.

If we believe the dead are conscious, then when "Grandpa Joe" or "Grandma Rose" appear to us at the foot of our bed and start "advising" us about "truth" we are going to be decieved, no matter how OSAS people might think they are, friend.

The angels are conscious and they are not appearing at the foot of our bed, are they? So why should conscious saints, like good old Prophet Samuel, appear at the foot of your bed?

 

[Phoneman777]

OK, make sense of your statement here:
"Paul's saying Christians groan for relief from their burdens, but NOT FOR relief by "resting in peace" in the grave, dead, without a body, unclothed, awaiting the resurrection, but to skip that and just go on to be clothed in our resurrection body in the presence of Jesus:
"...but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life"."

Your statement here appears to be saying that Paul is wanting to go find "relief from his burdens" by skipping death and nakedness by going straight to the presence of Jesus at the resurrection? And you find it absurd that Paul would die, and find himself immediately in the presence of Jesus, just because he does not yet have a resurrection body?

If I'm not getting it right, please put your statement in better form? My belief is that Paul would find Jesus' presence comforting immediately, even though he was not yet clothed, simply because he was in the presence of Jesus. The resurrection could wait.


Right, I don't think Paul is saying that. 1st, I never said Paul's view was that Christians were afraid to die. Nobody wants to die, but that has nothing to do with being afraid to die.

2nd, I don't see where Paul connected being "unclothed" with being away from the presence of the Lord? In fact, Paul said that dying was to come into the presence of the Lord for him!

So the fact he was "unclothed," or did not yet have his immortal covering, did not mean he would be away from the presence of the Lord. And this is what Paul was "groaning" for, to be in the presence of the Lord, despite still being naked with respect to the resurrection body.

What relieved Paul from his burdens was going into the presence of the Lord, and not having to suffer the blight of mortal existence any longer. Being naked, or without a glorified new body, was not Paul's concern, since that would come in its own time.

Paul presented an option of relieving his burden by going "unclothed." He was willing to endure this in death because he would be in the presence of the Lord!

Obviously, anybody would rather go into the presence of the Lord and immediately be clothed with glory. But being that glorification had to wait, Paul still preferred to go into the presence of the Lord, having the burdens of this mortal existence removed.

Words mean what the user wishes them to mean in the context he uses them. For me, "immortal" and "eternal" are very different. Souls exist forever in Outer Darkness, but they do not experience what the Bible calls "immortality" for the saint.

I've been assuming such all along.

Paul didn't once mention being "unconscious." So that was definitely not an option he was entertaining, as you seem to be claiming.

The angels are conscious and they are not appearing at the foot of our bed, are they? So why should conscious saints, like good old Prophet Samuel, appear at the foot of your bed?

Look, if "naked" and "unclothed" DOES NOT EXCLUDE us from the presence of Jesus, then why did Paul specifically say Christians do not groan for being "naked" and "unclothed" but "clothed upon"?

"For we in the tabernacle do groan, being burdened, NOT FOR that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon..."

A blind man can see that Paul had a problem with being "naked" and "unclothed" but no problem with being "clothed upon" with immortality. The only explanation is that "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the intermediate state of lying "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, in the grave, dead, resting in peace, awaiting the Resurrection fo the Just. Otherwise, Paul would have said:

"We who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, desiring to either be unclothed or clothed upon because whether dressed or not, we'll be with Jesus".

Did Paul say that?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Look, if "naked" and "unclothed" DOES NOT EXCLUDE us from the presence of Jesus, then why did Paul specifically say Christians do not groan for being "naked" and "unclothed" but "clothed upon"?

"For we in the tabernacle do groan, being burdened, NOT FOR that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon..."

That's a reasonable question, but it doesn't change the equation. Paul was suggesting he groaned for the glorified clothing. He also suggested he could prefer to endure death to be present with the Lord. I suggest that he was willing to forego immediate entry into glorification in order to be present with the Lord and finished with mortal suffering.

A blind man can see that Paul had a problem with being "naked" and "unclothed" but no problem with being "clothed upon" with immortality. The only explanation is that "naked" and "unclothed" refers to the intermediate state of lying "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, in the grave, dead, resting in peace, awaiting the Resurrection fo the Just. Otherwise, Paul would have said:

"We who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, desiring to either be unclothed or clothed upon because whether dressed or not, we'll be with Jesus".

Did Paul say that?

Yes...
2 Cor 5.2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

It's clear that Paul longed to be clothed with immortality. But it is equally clear that he longed to be in the presence of the Lord...

2 Cor 5.6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

So, it's clear to me, and to you, that Paul longed for both things, to be present with the Lord and to be clothed with immortality. None of this necessarily means that Paul has to have both simultaneously, nor does it mean that he cannot be present with the Lord and have to wait for his glorification later.

You seem to think Paul can be present with the Lord at death, and then must become unconscious in order to find being present with the Lord a simultaneous experience of glorification when he awakens? Correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[dev553344]

Considering that we are already in the heavenly realm with Jesus, why would that change because our terrestrial state changes?

Ephesians 2:4-7 KJV
4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
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:
7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:1-4 KJV
1) If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2) Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3) For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4) When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Much love!

Agreed. Things are good for us because of the Holy Spirit. He blesses us much and is kind to us.

 

[Gottservant]

You go to Heaven or Hell, but you don't wake up - until you are with God.

As Jesus said, "It's like a man who doesn't know how plants grow, who can still reap a harvest if he is ready" (gospels, from memory)

 

[Bill Judson]

You go to Heaven or Hell, but you don't wake up - until you are with God.

Soul sleep is heresy ya know

That's something various cults believe

 

[BlessedPeace]

You go to Heaven or Hell, but you don't wake up - until you are with God.

As Jesus said, "It's like a man who doesn't know how plants grow, who can still reap a harvest if he is ready" (gospels, from memory)

That's not scripture .

 

[Phoneman777]

That's a reasonable question, but it doesn't change the equation.

There's only one reasonable explanation for why Paul says Christians do not want to be unburdened from life by becoming "naked" and "unclothed" and instead be "clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life":

No one goes to heaven unless they're dressed.

Paul was suggesting he groaned for the glorified clothing.

Yes...because he didn't want to be found "naked" which makes no sense if disembodied saints go straight to heaven and walk the same golden streets, sing in the same angelic choir, eat from the same Tree of Life, etc., as will "embodied saints" at the resurrection.

He also suggested he could prefer to endure death to be present with the Lord.

Just like Christians prefer to be "absent from the church and to be present at the Cracker Barrel" - does that preference eliminate having to fight traffic to get there?

It's clear that Paul longed to be clothed with immortality. But it is equally clear that he longed to be in the presence of the Lord...

The issue is not what Paul "longed for" - it's what he "longed not for": being found "naked" and "unclothed".

If disembodied saints go to heaven and enjoy the same things embodied saints in heaven will enjoy, who cares? But, if "naked" and "unclothed" means "dead, without a body, in the grave, resting in peace, awaiting the resurrection...well, then, it's understandable why Paul didn't want that.

So, it's clear to me, and to you, that Paul longed for both things

Again, the issue is why he "longed not for" which is being found "naked" and "unclothed" - because nbo one goes to heaven unless they're dressed.

You seem to think Paul can be present with the Lord at death, and then must become unconscious in order to find being present with the Lord a simultaneous experience of glorification when he awakens? Correct me if I'm wrong?

No, what I know is that Paul didn't want to escape being "burdened" in this life by becoming "naked" and "unclothed" - but by being "clothed upon". The only explanation for that which makes any sense is that that dead saints don't go heaven before the Resurrection of the Just at which time we all put on "immortality".

 

[Randy Kluth]

There's only one reasonable explanation for why Paul says Christians do not want to be unburdened from life by becoming "naked" and "unclothed" and instead be "clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life":

No one goes to heaven unless they're dressed.

Yes...because he didn't want to be found "naked" which makes no sense if disembodied saints go straight to heaven and walk the same golden streets, sing in the same angelic choir, eat from the same Tree of Life, etc., as will "embodied saints" at the resurrection.

Just like Christians prefer to be "absent from the church and to be present at the Cracker Barrel" - does that preference eliminate having to fight traffic to get there?

The issue is not what Paul "longed for" - it's what he "longed not for": being found "naked" and "unclothed".

If disembodied saints go to heaven and enjoy the same things embodied saints in heaven will enjoy, who cares? But, if "naked" and "unclothed" means "dead, without a body, in the grave, resting in peace, awaiting the resurrection...well, then, it's understandable why Paul didn't want that.

Again, the issue is why he "longed not for" which is being found "naked" and "unclothed" - because nbo one goes to heaven unless they're dressed.

No, what I know is that Paul didn't want to escape being "burdened" in this life by becoming "naked" and "unclothed" - but by being "clothed upon". The only explanation for that which makes any sense is that that dead saints don't go heaven before the Resurrection of the Just at which time we all put on "immortality".

Clearly, I'm not going to convince you of something you're not believing is true. Neither am I convinced of what you're saying is true. So we'll just have to let it lie.

In sum, this is what I believe, though you don't have to agree and continue to argue with it. I believe that Paul longed to be with the Lord, to be present with Him, even if it meant he had to spend some time in a state of death, naked and without his immortal body. At least he would be with the Lord and no longer suffering on earth.

You can spin it any way you like, but this makes sense, whether it is wrong or right, whether it is what Paul says or not. It makes sense to say that Paul might want to just be free of the suffering of this world and to be immediately present with the Lord, even if it meant he had to endure time in a state of nakedness.

You may refuse to admit this makes sense, but it does make sense, regardless of what you think Paul is really saying. Paul wanted to be with the Lord. Paul wanted to be freed of his suffering in his mortal body.

Paul may be willing to endure waiting for his immortal body in a state of nakedness if he could just have those 2 things, to be present with the Lord and to be liberated from mortal suffering. The matter of waiting for immortality is something the saints under the altar had to do in Rev 6.9, though they were finished with their own suffering.

Rev 6.9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

 

[Hobie]

Please keep to the original topic. I have removed discussions relating to the Trinity which is also off topic. Please read Christianity Boards Policy regarding Trinity Discussion on this forum. Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB Posts/threads will be deleted and various members can/will incur warning points.

However, this topic will stay open. Please stick to this original topic.
Thank you
Angelina

It needs to be reviewed or soon all core beliefs will meet the same fate...

 

[Hobie]

Soul sleep is heresy ya know

That's something various cults believe

And yet what does the Bible say, that's what Christians should follow, not ideas and traditions of man. Need to read what is in it...

 

[Jay Ross]

And yet what does the Bible say, that's what Christians should follow, not ideas and traditions of man. Need to read what is in it...

Hobie, are you also including yourself in this statement, because you also present ideas and statements that are not in the pages of the bible but are the ideas and traditions of men.