navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » The Christian Afterlife
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic The Christian Afterlife Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2002-11-25 04:37 PM


http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,845507,00.html

I don't think it's so important to read the thread as it's about something quite different, but I wanted to contrast a different Christian perspective and hear the reaction to what people would normally regard their views of an afterlife to be:

quote:
Priestley [who was writing in the eighteenth century] was a devout Unitarian Christian, and Lodge makes a common mistake in thinking that materialism is essentially at odds with Christianity. It is, for one thing, a key part of the Creed that the afterlife involves the resurrection of the (brain-including) body. Many today who believe in life after death seem to think that when you die you waft off somewhere and continue some sort of conscious existence. But the original, time-honoured story is quite different: what happens is that you die, and the next thing you know is that it is the Day of Judgement, and you are setting off for it fully embodied.

[This message has been edited by Brad (11-25-2002 04:40 PM).]

© Copyright 2002 Brad - All Rights Reserved
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
1 posted 2002-11-25 06:20 PM


I'm not sure I agree with the "Afterlife".  

I often feel like there is probably only one lifehouse in which we all reside, just in different nooks and crannies, chambers and appartments.   There seems always to be another corridor or wall beyond that is life again with new dimensions.  When we are not inmates here, we are inmates elsewhere.  Whatever master or mistress or housecleaner is arranging this might not even be makeing judgements deep at all, but just whimsical renovations for change of scenery

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
2 posted 2002-11-25 06:34 PM


Uh huh, but what does that have to do with this description?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
3 posted 2002-11-25 07:14 PM


I was just expressing my perspective, as a Christian.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-25-2002 07:15 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
4 posted 2002-11-25 07:19 PM


Believe it or not that helps, but it sounded to me like you were more concerned with the word 'after-life' than with whether this is the description you believe in or the more common idea of a disembodied 'you' that is somehow anchored to the earth by a body.

Which makes more sense to you? If you want to talk about nooks and crannies in an overall concept of life, that's fine but either of the above descriptions take it a little bit farther than that.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
5 posted 2002-11-25 08:54 PM


I would then agree more with the fully embodied because I believe that we are all anchored to earth by a body of earth, the frame, and anchored to the heavens by a body of them as well, the soul, and anchored to existance as life altogether by being a body of both, the being.  Either always seems to have the others but just doesn't ever stay the same, or stay in the same nook or cranny, bedroom or apartment...but if you could look through the whole house at once I believe you'd notice they are always still under the roof.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-25-2002 10:15 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

6 posted 2002-11-25 10:05 PM


There are at least two or three different views held by Christians that I know of (there could certainly be more). One view is that when we die our soul goes to be with the Lord and is reunited with a resurrected body later (different views on when that actually happens as well). Some believe that it happens for Christians at the rapture prior to Christ's physical return to earth, and for non-Christians at the Day of Judgment. Others don't believe in the rapture and believe it happens for everyone, Christian and non-Christian at the Day of Judgment.

Some believe in "soul sleep", some believe that the soul and body are essentially the same and when the body dies, that means the soul dies as well. They all believe, though, that an actual physical body, though a transformed incorruptable body that is no longer subject to disease and death, will live forever with the Lord.

Again, some believe in heaven as a totally separate place from earth and some believe that heaven will be here on earth, once the heavens and earth are renewed, and some believe in various combinations of both. And for every conviction there are Bible verses and passages to back up a given conviction, even when read in context.

I personally have held various views at different times and at the moment I'm content to know that I don't know all the answers, but He does, and I will find out when it happens, unless, of course, if I can figure it all out beforehand!

Geeze, Brad, this is the kind of stuff (among other things) that different denominations are made of! Couldn't you have asked an easier question?! Now I have a terrible headache. *ouch*

But the bottom line, despite all the differing beliefs about different subjects is that all Christians believe/trust in Christ for salvation, as opposed to holding to a belief that one can save oneself through good works, meritorious deeds, earning righteousness through obedience to the law (and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be obedient, we just don't gain our standing with God because of obedience), etc.

That's where the certainty of belief comes in. He, and what He did, is our Absolute, our foundation. Christ's substitutionary, all-sufficient sacrifice on behalf of sinners, received individually by the sinner as a gift, through faith in His sacrifice on one's behalf, is the truth that Christian's have in common, despite other differences of interpretation that they may have.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
7 posted 2002-11-25 11:42 PM


Do you think "Day" in "Judgement Day" to a God might be a space of time measured very differntly than a day in our time?  Maybe it is very much smaller or larger in its space...it is stranger to ponder.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-25-2002 11:53 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
8 posted 2002-11-26 03:47 AM


Brad,

I agree with the aspect of there being a "body" involved in the afterlife.  Orthodox Christianity has always believed in the future bodily ressurrection of believers (and unbelievers for that matter).  But I strongly disagree with the assertion that mind, or spirit, is a result of bodily organization.  The bible actually seems to suggest the opposite.  God himself is described as "Spirit", or pneuma in the Greek.  The spirit is presented as distinct from the body, and yet united with the body.  If you want to say that spiritual things are all based on physical configurations, then you are landed right back in the problems of thoroughgoing naturalism.  Then God himself would have to be a result of physical configurations... a part of the universe rather than the Creator of it.  God, the ultimate personal being would be reduced to having originating from impersonal configurations of atoms.  Why try to naturalize Christianity, or Spritualize naturalism?  Just call naturalism what it is, and Christianity what it is.  But Christianity has always believed in a bodily existence in the afterlife.  In that much I will agree.  


The article you took that quote from seems to suggest that our ideas of "spiritual" existence after death are not the "time honored" creed of Christian belief, which really taught a bodily existence.  The mistake is the dichotomy.  Christianity has always presented the sublime unity of body and spirit.  This article tries to pin us on one or the other, and then hide the fact by explaining "spirit" as part of the body, or derived from the body.  It is a suggestion of ignorance in the early creeds.  They really didn't know that "spirit" was only the result of chemical processes, like we enlightened ones do now... so they say.  I don't buy it, because I do not presuppose naturalism.  I think those guys back there actually got some divine revelation after all.  


Stephen.  


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-26-2002 03:58 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
9 posted 2002-11-26 11:22 AM


That would explain many biblical contradictions regarding the subject of death and the afterlife. Like how could the bible state that Christ was the first to ascend into heaven, even though christianity teaches that many from the old testemant already ascended.

To a christian, this topic should matter, as well as other christain doctrines, afterall, the bible states that in this day and age, false christian churches will dominate (the majority), preaching a different Christ.

Rev 12:9 Satan deceives the whole world.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-26-2002 12:19 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
10 posted 2002-11-26 12:33 PM


Opeth:

Three words for you: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!

Brad:

There are certainly different theories floating around out there in Christendom regarding the nature of the after-life.  Although much has been written over the centuries regarding what happens between death and the Second Coming, the Bible actually offers very little didactic information on the subject.  There are parables that describe those who have passed as being conscious of their after-death conditions, but it is difficult to tell whether Christ was describing things as they really are or if he was just using rhetorical devices to drive his point home.

So I don't see the differences of opinion in Christian circles as contradictions, as Opeth contends, but rather as opinions that often are of little or no moral, theological consequence.

What the New Testament does explore somewhat comprehensively is the nature of the resurrected body.  Jesus' historical, bodily resurrection is even mentioned by Paul as being so important that, if it did not occur, we may as well "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."  Paul goes on to describe the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15.  Jesus' resurrection is the source of hope for the Christian and, fortunately, there is ample evidence (biblical and extra-biblical) that supports the historical resurrection of Christ.

Quickly, to again address Opeth's contention, the Lutheran and Reformed Christian traditions do not assign equal weight to all Christan doctrines.  For the Lutheran, it is Christ's vicarious atonement on the cross and his resurrection that form the focal point of all history and is the foundation of all good theology.  We believe this is consistent with apostalic teaching.

Lastly, differences of opinion on secondary and tertiary theological issues does not usually rise to the level of "preaching a different Christ."  The Bible does not ascribe equal weight to all teachings and neither should we.

Thanks for the post, Brad.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
11 posted 2002-11-26 12:49 PM


Jim,

So what is your explanation to these biblical statements, as they do relate to each other.

That Satan deceives the "entire world."
That Christ calls his true flock a "little flock."
That there will be "another Christ" preached.
That Satan appears as a minister of righteousnes.
That there will be false churches.

How does Satan deceive the whole world?
Is all of christian faiths one little flock?
Which churches are the false ones?

PS ~ I have heard of the so-called christian "context" and find it to be quite illogical and confusing. That is what got me started on my truth finding journey to begin with.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
12 posted 2002-11-26 12:57 PM


Opeth:

I think this is the wrong thread for addressing these issues.  I'd rather not hijack Brad's thread.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
13 posted 2002-11-26 01:07 PM


That's cool. Answer it on the thread regarding religion.

Back to the subject matter of this thread. It wasn't until the church fathers (Aquinas, Augustine) accepted Plato's opinion, that the immortal soul doctrine crept into the christian church and was stamped as christian doctrine, bringing forth the immediate placement of people after death.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
14 posted 2002-11-26 02:05 PM


Opeth,

You are either unaware of, or not bringing up, the Jewish scriptures which indicated a developing belief in a "hereafter".


"And though after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God"  Job 19:26


"I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.  Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"  Psalm 16:8-10


"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."  Daniel 12:2,3


This fits with the idea of divine revelation of the after-life, both in the Jewish nation and the Gentile world.  The Jews did not have the full expression of this revelation but it is undeniably present.  The Gentiles had it fragmented in Plato, the idea of pure "spirit" without body.  The Christian revelation is the fullest expression of this, marrying body and spirit in the hereafter.  I don't have any problem believing that God sometimes chooses to give revelation as a gradual unfolding, as with this doctrine.  Neither do I have a problem that he reveals truth to non-Christians.  This supports my claim that the knowledge of God is given to some degree to all men.  But to say that this is a hi-jacked doctrine slipped in by the Roman Catholic Church is too simplistic to me, and counts out the possibility of divine revelation.  In fact, my guess is that it presupposes the impossibility of divine revelation, and settles on this unfounded theory.  

I am curious...How can the Jewish Scriptures above be shown to have connection with Plato?  Even if they did, does that show that Plato was wrong, or that the Jews were wrong?  They seemed to both hold halves that made little sense until they came together in full Christian expression as taught by Jesus himself.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-26-2002 02:37 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
15 posted 2002-11-26 10:53 PM





[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-26-2002 11:07 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
16 posted 2002-11-27 08:10 AM


The Jews/Israelites never believed in an immediate placement in heaven or hell after death. That is not the same belief as believing in an afterlife.

Remember the word hell is translated from these words: gehenna, sheol, tartaros, & hades. The word sheol has been defined as either just a grave or an abode of the dead.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
17 posted 2002-11-27 12:53 PM


Opeth,

No, the Israelites did not believe in a full grown doctrine of Heaven and Hell, like we find in the New Testament.  I never said they did.  Go back and read my post.  But what I am saying, that you are failing to address, is that from these scriptures above it can adequately be argued that the Jews had a conception of sentient existence after death.  Please explain what these scriptures are relating if they do not convey the hope of conscious life beyond death.  The aspect in all of the above scriptures I am referring to are phrases which don't descriptively fit "Sheol" or the "grave". . .

"I shall see God"

"thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (sheol)"

"awake... to everlasting life ..."



Please explain how these scriptures can be cogently thought to express "Sheol" as meaning merely death.  Of course the concept of Sheol can be argued to be an underdeveloped awareness of an existence of punishment and torment ... But even without going there, thus giving you the benifit of the doubt about Sheol meaning merely absolute death, these scriptures seem to be talking about something other than Sheol.  In fact the one scripture is a declaration to God, by David I think, that God would not leave his soul in "Sheol"...  interesting huh?  How do you address this?


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-27-2002 12:54 PM).]

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

18 posted 2002-11-27 03:13 PM


"The Christian revelation is the fullest expression of this, marrying body and spirit the hereafter"

With respect, what a muddle!

The "real" nature of man is either spiritual or material it can't be both.  If the former, then we are what we are now (whether we entirely know it or not) and the use of the composite "after-life" becomes inappropriate. If the latter then we'll end up as next year's compost.


Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
19 posted 2002-11-27 04:41 PM


Stephan,

"But what I am saying, that you are failing to address, is that from these scriptures above it can adequately be argued that the Jews had a conception of sentient existence after death."

~ You are misunderstanding why I stated what I did. It is either the fault of this form of communication, or between us both.

The subject matter of this thread deals with the non-belief of an immediate afterlife upon dying. My only contention that I have made so far regarding the issue at hand is this...

In my findings, the Bible does not support an immediate afterlife upon death, but does support what Paul called the sleeping of the soul...meaning, that everyone who has died is still dead, awaiting the coming of the Great Day of the Lord.

Now, do you understand my contention?  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
20 posted 2002-11-27 07:03 PM



Furlong,

Why can't spirit and matter be in the same spectrum?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
21 posted 2002-11-28 12:26 PM


furlong,

Your nature, even now, is not either physical or spiritual.  The true muddle is when we try to make it one or the other.  Think about this...  If we were completely physical (as is proposed in a naturalistic view of the universe) then all of knowledge, emotions, and consciousness is reduced to the chemical level.  In fact everything would be a part of the naturalistic chain of events... it's cause and effect.  If you are merely physical, everything about you is simply the physical properties that emanated from the configuration that preceded the present.  If this is true then, will, thought, emotion, are all illusory, and nothing we experience means anything other than what "IS".  However if these things are reflections of absolute things which are not physical, then we can easily explain our insistence that we actually have choices, true knowledge, and purpose.  In fact to use your own words...   what is the difference between a "muddle" and something that isn't a muddle, in a universe that is only physical through and through?  Wouldn't your perception of disorder or confusion only be an arbitrary decision?  What is order, and what makes it better than disorder, in a totally physical universe?


My point is that a totally physical existence presents us with a plethora of enigmas and unsolvable problems.  


If you want to go the other direction and say that we are only spiritual, then you are denying physical existence which we experience on a daily basis.  You would end up ignoring the obvious reason we have to breathe, eat, walk, bury dead bodies, etc...  after all we do have physical bodies.  But the spiritual aspect is already married, so to speak, to our physical bodies.  The future life described in the bible is much like what we have now, only in an unfallen state, without sin.  It is a glorified state of the same configuration, body and spirit... only there will be no death and no sin.  


I would like to see your metaphysical defense of either an all-physical, or all-spiritual universe.  


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-28-2002 12:28 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
22 posted 2002-11-28 12:41 PM


Opeth,

So your only contention is that you think the Bible teaches that there is no immediate afterlife?  Well I don't really care if it is immediate or not.  But there is little support scripturally for the teaching that there is no after-life at all.  I thought that's what you've been saying all along.  There are many scriptures that teach a definite after-life for believers and unbelievers alike.  I don't really have any problem with allowing room for disagreement upon if there is a "sleep" in between or not.  I see it as irrelevant.

Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-28-2002 12:45 AM).]

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

23 posted 2002-11-28 08:36 AM


Stephen

It seems to me that what you just said goes to the heart of the problem that maybe Opeth has (and I suspect many other logically thinking people have) with the your presentation of mainstream Christianity; namely the attempt (vain IMO) to ground “reality” and your religious beliefs in a foundation comprising of a mix of spirituality and materiality, or, which is the same thing, the concept of a God who is all-Spirit and all-Good but who “allows” evil materialism.  Surely the starting point for any “un-muddled” discussion of these ideas is the recognition that infinite Spirit cannot possibly reside in or, as you say be “married” to finite matter - the two are absolute opposites.  (And incidentally, as I am sure you appreciate, I am not talking here about “consciousness” when I use the word Spirit).  

All the argument in the other thread, and I mean ALL, ultimately boils down to an attempt by you and Jim to use a (mostly) literal interpretation of biblical texts to try and defend a mainstream theology which appears to me to be fundamentally flawed.  A construct, if you like, of a couple of thousand years of human tinkering.

To make the point: Jim says at one point in the other thread:

“Some of the doctrines you mentioned (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) were articulated in order to counter teachings that were inconsistent with Apostalic teachings such as the kenosis ..”

With great respect to Jim, he might as well have used the word “invented” instead of “articulated”.

So we if we dismiss any proposition which attempts to promulgate the theory that Spirit and Matter can co-mingle we are essentially left with what might be simplistically termed the materialist viewpoint and its antithesis, that of real man as a spiritual idea.  Either of these to my mind is logically valid.  And for what it’s worth I personally can see merit in both positions.  I tend to blow with the wind, or the music: when listening to Madonna the former view and to Beethoven the latter   .

A section from Brad’s link, in respect of the former camp:

“It was in 1994 that Francis Crick published The Astonishing Hypothesis - the hypothesis in question being "that 'You', your joys and your sorrows..., your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules". Crick was high on the latest neuroscience, and understandably so. But neuroscience has added precisely nothing to our ability to grasp the basic materialist idea that the mind is just the brain. That was already old news in the 18th century, when thinkers such as the philosopher-chemist Joseph Priestley took it to be more than mere hypothesis. "Mind", Priestley wrote in 1777, "is not a substance distinct from the body... sensation and thought do necessarily result from the organization of the brain... what I call myself is an organized system of matter."

Intuitively I CAN relate to a proposition which ascribes our human totality to nothing more than a biological machine.  Not very romantic maybe, kind of sad in some ways, but nevertheless marvellous, and as our material science advances, perhaps (debatably) more and more believable.

And for the latter camp we have Jesus:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

and more recently Leibnitz, Descartes, Fichte, Hegel, Spinoza, Bishop, Berkeley and last century Mrs Eddy.  The latter being perhaps the most radical.  And it’s to her writings I’d refer you if you want a thorough metaphysical justification for the “spiritual approach”.

Either extreme in my view is more “honest” and tenable than mainstream religious teaching.


[This message has been edited by furlong (11-28-2002 08:38 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
24 posted 2002-11-28 12:27 PM


furlong,

One thing at a time please.  

"the concept of a God who is all-Spirit and all-Good but who “allows” evil materialism"


Judeo-Christian tradition has never held that Spirit is "good" and material things are "evil".  This dichotomy that you are referring to describes the Gnostic heresies alluded to in scripture.  Why the presumption that Spirit and Matter are incompatible?  or that one is evil, and one is good.  I see no convincing metaphysical or theological argument that matter is contrary to God's goodness.  If God is the Creator, he can certainly create what he desires.  In Genesis, when God created everything in the physical universe, it is related that he "saw that it was good".  


You are either a unity of spirit and body, or you are body alone, or spirit alone.  These alternatives to the reality that God constructed present us with incomplete halves.  You have not yet addressed the problems of a wholly physical universe, nor the problems of a wholly spiritual one.  The latter seems to me obvious.  Who but speculative philosophers could  come up with a theory that we obviously know isn't true... namely that we do not have a physical nature?!  Show me someone who really thinks so and lives like they believe it.  

You can of course try to redefine physical to mean spiritual or vice versa.  But this is not convincing.  It is taking concepts and meanings of words that have been around a long time and saying "this is what that really means".  A bit too arbitrary for me.  If you are only physical BTW, there is no point in saying that either of us are right.  Correctness is irrelevant in comparing two physical phenomena.

Of course there are people who have tried to make things Jesus said to fit into naturalistic religion.  What he says obviously doesn't fit with materialism, so let's try to spiritualize nature.  It won't fit there either.

I will ask you to present your alternative view of reality, and cogently resolve the problems of naturalism (spiritual or not).    


Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
25 posted 2002-11-28 04:25 PM


Stephan,

But it is relevant. It is one of the differences between the true Christ's church and the "another Christ" church.

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

26 posted 2002-11-28 04:54 PM


"the concept of a God who is all-Spirit and all-Good but who ““allows”” evil materialism"

Ok, that was perhaps loosely phrased and you read too much into it.  I said “evil materialism” meaning “evil” (I am not suggesting that material or matter is bound to be evil, perhaps irrelevant, but not “evil”).  But in any event this is apart from the point I was making which was simply that the idea of a perfect immortal God of Love having any part of or knowledge of evil is patently fallacious.  

My understanding of tradition is that God (Spirit) is Love, is Good and Perfect - that He harbours not one shred of evil.  Is this not your belief?  If God = Spirit then Spirit = Good (as opposed to evil).  Is this a problem for you?

“Why the presumption that Spirit and Matter are incompatible? or that one is evil, and one is good. I see no convincing metaphysical or theological argument that matter is contrary to God's goodness. If God is the Creator, he can certainly create what he desires. In Genesis, when God created everything in the physical universe, it is related that he "saw that it was good".”

Stephen, it is wholly impossible for me to conceive of an immortal spiritual infinite presence having any “knowledge” of matter let alone “creating” it.  If you try to ascribe “personal” or even human characteristics to “God” and then apply Genesis literally I can only assume that you are suffering from what seems to me to be a fairly common malady afflicting enthusiastic mainstream religion readers viz “logic-shutdown”. (I apologise if that came off rude I don’t mean to be )

To put it clumsily, the proposition of an infinite spiritual “being” involving himself in matters of matter is not possible; whereas the proposition that the “creations” or reflections of a spiritual “being” are themselves in reality entirely spiritual in nature (however determinedly they hang on to physical “reality”) seems to me to be entirely logical.  It might be hard to swallow in terms of what we “see”, it might even be “against” the weight of a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it seems to me much more plausible than any attempt to merge the Spirit and matter with an artificial dogmatic doctrinal glue.

As for pressing me for the arguments in favour of one extreme or the other.  Even if I had the time and ability to field them (which I don’t), I don’t have the inclination to argue for one or the other as as I said before I am entirely undecided myself.  All I do know, and the only point I have been trying to make, is the illogicality of what you call the Judeo-Christian tradition and by implication the more attractive claims of the other two positions.

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

27 posted 2002-11-28 04:56 PM


"... namely that we do not have a physical nature?!  Show me someone who really thinks so and lives like they believe it."

Jesus

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2002-11-28 06:05 PM


Jesus definitely taught that the body should not be our first concern, and that our spiritual nature is preeminent.  But that is a far cry from teaching that we don't have a physical nature also.  


Consider the following scriptures:
(all of these are the words of Jesus)


"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell" Matthew 10:28


"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into tempation.  The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Matthew 26:41


(after his resurrection...)

"They were startled and frightened, theinking they saw a ghost.  He said to them, 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?  Look at my hands and my feet.  It is I myself!  a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" Luke 24:37-39

And these are just the scriptures where Jesus himself spoke.  But the full scriptural support for the teaching of a unity of body and spirit can be taught from Genesis to Revelation.  Especially emphatic are the Apostles of Jesus, especially Paul, regarding this truth.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-28-2002 06:35 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
29 posted 2002-11-28 07:42 PM


Meseems most often think of the soul as being inside the bone-vessel, the content of the "soulcase,"  and the body as the outform, being outside the soul, but this is not the case, the body is inside, it is the soul's soul, and thus the soul is the body's body.   The Soul is not the inhabitant, it is the house.

However I believe that body and soul are still both part of the elements of the same realm, they most seem to me just different, or opposite states, of each other .  
One is faint,  heavenly, ghostly, and the other is distinct and solid, worldly, but they are both natural and divine, in my sciences.




[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-28-2002 09:32 PM).]

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

30 posted 2002-11-29 04:53 AM


Stephen (and Essorant)

As ever nothing will be achieved by using lines of the bible like cannonballs in a situation where the blue water between the flagships is immense.  I might equally load up my guns and lob a few back at you, but as I have no burning desire (or time) to defend the "spiritual approach" maybe I could direct both you and Essorant to a lady who has :
http://www.spirituality.com/


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
31 posted 2002-11-29 07:25 AM


quote:
Surely the starting point for any "un-muddled" discussion of these ideas is the recognition that infinite Spirit cannot possibly reside in or, as you say be "married" to finite matter - the two are absolute opposites.

We used to believe that matter and energy were opposites, too. Einstein helped us realize otherwise.

quote:
Stephen, it is wholly impossible for me to conceive of an immortal spiritual infinite presence having any "knowledge" of matter let alone "creating" it.

The inability of one person to conceive of something doesn't mean that particular something doesn't exist. That statement, and all of those that follow it, tell us a lot more about you than about the concepts being discussed. "Is not possible" and "seems to me to be entirely logical" and "seems to me to be much more plausible" are meaningless until you tell us WHY you believe them.

Your link, unfortunately, wasn't a great deal more helpful. I looked around a bit, but could find no definitive word on the basis of Mary Baker Eddy's philosophy (or, at least, the interpretation of it you've given us). Most of what I saw was either anecdotal or crass commercialization. Maybe you could provide a link to a specific reference on the site?

Any person interested in modern science quickly accepts the reality that what we see isn't always the end of the story. I'm perfectly willing, in spite of my senses and common sense, to explore the possibility that matter doesn't matter. But it's going to take a bit more than "because I said so" to get me there.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
32 posted 2002-11-29 09:50 AM


"And God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul."

~ Therefore, according to this verse in the Bible, mankind does not possess a soul, but is a soul.

The original Hebrew word translated as soul into English is nephesh. This same word, nephesh, is used to describe dead animals in Genesis and Leviticus.

~ Soul, is something we, including animals are, living or dead. That Jesus points out the difference in soul and body is mainly to distinguish the first death and the final or second death with regards to a life taken.

Spirit, is a term that is separate from soul. And according to the Bible, it is something that man possesses. It could be considered to be a floppy drive containing every piece of information about an individual, however without the soul (the being him or herself), it is not conscious after death.

It always amused me how some Bibles translated the word "soul" in that verse to "being." Why?

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-29-2002 09:51 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
33 posted 2002-11-29 11:52 AM


The soul is like a sky in a sky around the body that is like a world on a world, its subject in its portion and assembly of elements to compounds seems as infinite as the soul even though there is always more soul at once to the body, than body to the soul.  If the heavens have an end,  bodies probably do too in thier potentiality.  But in importance the soul and body seem to be equals, mutually meant to uphold a force that keeps the being "informed."  In order for either to be substantial they both must, so the being can be.  The body needs meat, and the soul needs spirit, and the being needs both in order to be convey itself.  Thus it all seems to boil down to say that a well proportioned appetite and diet are both most needed for a healthy being          

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-29-2002 02:14 PM).]

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

34 posted 2002-11-29 06:00 PM


""Is not possible" and "seems to me to be entirely logical" and "seems to me to be much more plausible" are meaningless until you tell us WHY you believe them."

Sorry I thought I had Stephen.  Simply because if for want of a better phrase "a presence" exists (which I don't believe it necessarily does) "who's" characteristics comprise an infinite immortal divine immaterial etc etc being then I can't see how a logical approach can suggest that such a "being" could "know" about matter.

To me that seems like a basic and obvious starting point.  Perhaps in your view it amounts to little more than a belief.  So be it.  I don't see any necessity for theological support for such a position but if you need it or are interested I'll try and find you a more precise link to Mrs Eddy's writings.  She was rather hot on theology and usually I have to admit incomprehensible to me.   

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
35 posted 2002-11-29 08:04 PM


furlong,

"As ever nothing will be achieved by using lines of the bible like cannonballs in a situation where the blue water between the flagships is immense"


And I don't usually use scripture alone in discussing issues like this.  Remember I was responding to your assertion that Jesus taught that we do not have physical natures.  The scriptures I placed were not any proofs of what I believe.  There were just statements from Jesus to show that he held no "either / or" view of Spirit and Body.  This mentality was the same error of the Gnostics.  You can believe such a teaching to be true, but one thing for certain, it cannot accurately be attributed to Jesus Christ.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-29-2002 08:06 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
36 posted 2002-11-30 01:31 AM


"infinite immortal divine immaterial...being"

Furlong

Why should any Creator have to live up to such high human standards and expectations?
God's presence may be very physically bestowed into our sights in many shapes and personalites we encounter in our daily lives but we cannot see it beyond our thoughts that disable us to accept anything less than the idealization in our minds as God.  Such an absolute is confined most likely to be an abstraction  forever, a phantom, it is in one's own head of fancies alone.
I would believe that you were God before I'd believe in such an absolute.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 01:40 AM).]

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

37 posted 2002-11-30 06:22 AM


“Remember I was responding to your assertion that Jesus taught that we do not have physical natures.”

Sorry Stephen, I thought you were making a wider point as well.  My mistake.

“You can believe such a teaching to be true, but one thing for certain, it cannot accurately be attributed to Jesus Christ.”

I can’t argue that one way or the other, but I do know that Mrs Eddy, who in her day was capable I believe of holding her own against any of the leading traditional theologians, would vehemently disagree with you.  I still haven’t found a suitable link though.

“Why should any Creator have to live up to such high human standards and expectations”

Essorant, all I was doing was stating what I believe is the Christian concept of the creator.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
38 posted 2002-11-30 10:29 AM


Furlong,

Overall, I am trying to make a larger point... that the metaphysical proposition of a unity of body and spirit is more cogent than taking either side by itself.  But my use of scirpture is to show that this is what the Judeo-Christian tradition holds, and supported by what Jesus taught.  I know there are many people who would disagree and even call themselves "theologians".  But much of what I have seen along this vein, involves  taking scripture out of context and forcing it into a philosophical system of some kind.  My suggestion for all is to get a New Testament in modern english (King James can be irksome to read).  And read the gospels first, and then the epistles.  There is only so much in the Bible that can be convincingly wrested out of it's context.  I think many people who are confused and feel like the Bible presents an impossible tangle of ideas, have probably never read it.  Going on what others say (including myself) about the Bible is not enough to form an accurate opinion about what the Bible says.  Sure I would like to discuss what Mary Baker Eddy says about the bible.  But if we are going to discuss some of these issues, I want to hear you discuss it as well.  Otherwise you can have no true conception of her interpretation, whether it is accurate or not in relating the essence of what was intended by the original teacher(s).  I could take the writings of any ancient philosopher piecemeal and probably construct something not even close to what was meant... and be convincing to those who never read the texts.


"I can’t argue that one way or the other, but I do know that Mrs Eddy, who in her day was capable I believe of holding her own against any of the leading traditional theologians, would vehemently disagree with you."


Why do you believe that Mrs Eddy was "capable of holding her own" against traditional theologians, seeing you are not very familiar with the text they are arguing from?  "holding your own", must mean more than being a ferocious debater, polemicist, or politician.  In my eyes it must be the ability to present a cogent defense based on the texts.  Maybe she did, Maybe she didn't.  I need to read her stuff to know.  You would need to read the Bible to know.


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-30-2002 10:38 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
39 posted 2002-11-30 10:47 AM


Originally, the Christian afterlife was based on the belief of a ressurection.  Somehow this belief was changed during the past so many thousands of years to where now mainstream christianity teaches this...

1. A person dies.
2. Their soul lives.
3. This soul goes to a place: heaven or hell

This belief is not biblical, in fact, its roots are based in paganism.  For if the above outline is true, why would we, logically,  need a ressurection?

Mainstream christianity wants us to believe that after the soul goes to either heaven or hell immediately upon death, that later there these same souls will go back into the body for the ressurection...huh? Why? This is so illogical and stupid.1. Let's see...

1. A person dies.
2. Their soul lives.
3. This soul goes to a place: heaven or hell
4. Later, during the second coming these souls go back into their bodies.
5. There is judgment to take place where the people either go to back to heaven or hell.

Why judge them then, if they are already there? Too funny.

Okay, I die and get thrown into hell, where I suffer, then they are going to take me out of hell and let me line up for a judgment...Great! I get a break from the burning and the pain...I hope I am last in line, the longer the better. Finally, I get judged. I say to the judge, why even judge me when I have already been sentenced?

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

40 posted 2002-11-30 10:51 AM


*

[This message has been edited by Tim (11-30-2002 10:52 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
41 posted 2002-11-30 11:26 AM


Opeth,

Your point?  There are seeming ridiculous things in every religion to peoples, things that seem too strange to be believed in.  
This does not however mean by any means that they might not be closer to the truth.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 11:47 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
42 posted 2002-11-30 11:43 AM


My point is the nonsense of it all. Could a Creator who created us in His image, who created the entier universe, be that nonsensical? Absolutely not.

With regards to the subject of this thread, it would appear to be rather ludicrous for the "soul migration" to take place to begin with, therefore the belief in a "soul sleep" is quite a logical alternative.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 11:51 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
43 posted 2002-11-30 11:43 AM


One the of the Egyptians beliefs was that the Creator masturbated and ejaculated and all the Universe sprung thus.  That sounds a bit ridiculous to me but that does not mean it is too strange to have happened.

"Could a Creator who created us in His image, who created the entier universe, be that nonsensical? Absolutely not."

If there is such a Creator, do you expect to see all his logic, and absolutly ?  

I would prefer to be able to remember everything through all of life, since life seems short.  It seems nonsensical that we can't, but I give benefit of the doubt there is something that must of force make it neccessary for us to forget, some logic behind it all, or we would not have to forget things during life, and I would not be more forgetful than most.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 12:43 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
44 posted 2002-11-30 11:44 AM


Opeth,

In your theological view, has the ressurection already occurred or is it a future event?
Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
45 posted 2002-11-30 12:13 PM


According to the Bible,

The only person who has ever been ressurected from the dead is Christ.

Eventually, there will be 3 ressurections.

1. The first ressurection will occur when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom on earth. Those whom have been called during this lifetime will then be born again into a spiritual body, including the called ones who are still alive.

2. The second ressurection will take place during the 1000 year ruling of Christ and his saints. All those whom have lived and were never called, or ever heard of Christ's name will be ressurected from the dead back into their flesh and blood bodies (see Ezekial and the Valley of the Bones), where they will no longer be taught by man, but by God and the saints. During this period, most will accept Christ as their saviour and will be born again too.

3. The third ressurection is for those who are incorrigbly wicked (a flesh and blood ressurection), including those that refused Christ during the second ressurection (they will join here), where their fate is the Lake of Fire, but not be tortured forever, no...Because this God is merciful and just. They will be burned up and no longer exist. There chance for eternal life is forever gone. An eternal and everlasting punishMENT for sure.

Paul called that the second death. Christ said to fear not who can only destroy the body (first death), but He who can destroy both the body and soul in gehenna. Christ uses gehenna, in the valley of Hinnom, as an example of what the Lake of Fire is to be like, but this won't happen until the 3rd ressurection takes place. Gehenna was a place where a fire continuously burned with garbage and dead bodies.

Death in Greek = thanatos. Strong's concordance of the Bible states that the earliest meaning of the term thanatos is extermination or non-existence, not an "eternal separation from God" that mainstream christianity likes to use to scare the sh#t out of people, thereby expanding their business and pocketbooks...Yes, these merchants of false christianity have desecrated the Temple of Christ.

My Temple should be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves...GET OUT! Thus, sayeth the Lord.


[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 12:30 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
46 posted 2002-11-30 01:08 PM


What do you think should be ammended herein?  

I would be prepared to change anything of my own beliefs for a respectful and enlightning revelation.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 01:15 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
47 posted 2002-11-30 01:33 PM


Essorant,

Are you speaking to me? And if so, please clarify what you mean by what is to be ammended.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 01:34 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
48 posted 2002-11-30 02:08 PM


Opeth,

Several points of contention I have with what you are saying... Please help me clarify these that I may also find the truth.


1)  You are maintaining death as a "soul sleep" until the future resurrections you described, right?  And Yet, Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and two disciples on the "mount of transfiguration" (Matthew 17:1-3).  They talked and had discourse with Jesus and his disciples.  How would you reconcile your view of "soul sleep" with this instance?  Remember Moses and Elijah at this point had most certainly deceased physically.  The bible even accounts for Moses' death.


2)  Whether one believes in "soul sleep", or a post-death awareness prior to the resurrection of the body, makes what difference?  If a person has "Faith in Christ" as the Bible teaches, he will be right with God either way.  Or if a person persists in unbelief, he will perish either way.  You never did answer my earlier question, why this is relevant at all.  You merely said that it was the difference between the true Church and the apostate one ... in arbitrary terms, begging the question.  


3)  As to your belief in "soul sleep", the Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in the same... hence an example of denominational religion that believes and potentially uses that to gain converts, which in turn tithe money into the religious organization.  I say that to point out the fact that ANY doctrine can be used to get money if that it is the motive behind it.  Is that the motive behind the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine?  I don't know.  But I doubt it.  The point is, I don't use such fallacious argumentation of what people do with dogma, to refute or support the truth of it.  It is another issue completely.  


4)  How can you so easily jump from being an agnostic (We cannot know God) to being a recipient of divine revelation, and not only so, but one of the scant few in the universe to be able to get it right!?  Pardon me, but which Opeth are we to listen to?  I am not making fun of your struggle or attempting to irritate.  But in light of all that you said, can you expect someone to really think you've got it figured out?  How easily can some one accept creeds which are apparantly unsettled in even your mind?  Especially seeing you tend to mock honest questioning when it is asked, or tell people they aren't elite as you to understand, and so aren't worthy of explaination or doctrinal clarification.


5)  You still have not addressed such  scriptures as the one where Jesus has rebuke for a church that is doctrinally correct, but without ardent love.  This suggests to me that your whole conception of the "little flock" has at least the possibility of error.  I am not saying that right doctrine is not important, but there are 'weightier matters of the law'.  In one sweep, your statements accuse Christendom across the board as crooks, swindlers, and deceivers.  The specks become motes, and in eyes you've never seen.  You are not God.  And to be honest I sense very little love in anything you say.  Remember, "You will know a tree by it's fruit"?  Where is the fruit of the Spirit to at least make the things you say palatable?  Remember that a little sugar helps the medicine go down.  And you may find the need for less and less sugar as you become a trusted physician.  But since there are a lot of travelling medicine men around, bear with us.  I'm having a hard time even hearing what you are saying beyond the bitterness and anger at religion that you exude.  You say that good and evil cannot come up together... that truth and heresy can not occur in the same churches.  I say this is totally unscriptural to believe so!  Remember Jesus' parable of the wheat & tares?  Yes, I know he was speaking of the world primarily.  But Paul also said, "There must be heresies among you that some may be approved".  Half of the heresy that Paul dealt with was in the churches and much of it was not doctrinal as much as practical.  


6)  If you are really of a Christian concern to help others see, then you will be able to address my honest concerns about your doctrine, by answering the above concern #1 for example.  You cannot just take honest scriptural concerns, shoot them down, and say you don't want to discuss it with those who aren't "called" and "enlightened" like yourself.  This is obscurantism at the max.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-30-2002 02:24 PM).]

furlong
Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129

49 posted 2002-11-30 02:48 PM


Stephen

Ok, you have made two clear points:

“... that the metaphysical proposition of a unity of body and spirit is more cogent than taking either side by itself.”

I’d be interested to know if you think you would feel that way if you had never heard of the Bible and if you had never been indoctrinated (as I was) in the Judeo-Christian tradition?  But perhaps that’s unfair.  Perhaps that question is difficult or impossible for you to answer?  In any event I can only repeat what I’ve already said which is that such a marriage appears to be too ludicrous to contemplate, and interestingly all the detailed objections that Opeth raises seem to me to flow from the attempt to design a doctrine around the oxymoronic spirit/matter combination.

“But my use of scirpture is to show that this is what the Judeo-Christian tradition holds, and supported by what Jesus taught.”

Two distinct elements here:

1  Your use of scripture is to show what Judeo-Christian tradition holds?

Yes sure it is.  I don’t disagree with that.

2   Your use of scripture is to show what Jesus taught?

No.  As you rightly go on to point out: it is to show what you (and other mainstream Christians) THINK Jesus taught.

Much as I might like to discuss Mrs Eddy’s views I flagged them merely to illustrate a modern day interpretation of one of the extremes.  I’m not sure that I am sufficiently convinced by them to argue them in the face of one so entrenched in a traditional view as yourself even if I had the detailed knowledge to do so .    My intended contribution to this thread was merely to state what I happen to believe to be the impossibility of the middle way with the consequent implications that that has for any form of physical afterlife.  As for Mrs Eddy’s stature I admit I have not read the primary texts in full (either the Bible or S&H) but I have read all the Peel biography and several others, together with much of her ancillary writing, letters, debates and lecture transcripts, together with many media articles (mainly newspapers) about her.  I think I am sufficiently qualified in that respect to make a reasonably accurate assessment of how her peers judged her, always taking into account of course that she was a woman in the late 19thC early 20thC, engaged in an arena where vested interests were often viciously protected and bigotry and misogynism were rife.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
50 posted 2002-11-30 02:54 PM


Stephan,

"And Yet, Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and two disciples on the "mount of transfiguration" (Matthew 17:1-3)."

~ Of course, I know of this scripture, and it has been spoken to me many times in the same defense. Where does the scripture say that this transfiguration was of the past or present? This scripture, by itself, with no interpretation is just what it is, a vision of these individuals speaking. If Moses and Elijah had already ascended into heaven, the Bible would contradict itself. For it says that Jesus was the first to ascend into heaven, and of this time, he was still alive.

~ This was what was to come, a future event, indeed. A transfiguration, a vision of an event to come.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 02:56 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
51 posted 2002-11-30 03:03 PM


"Whether one believes in "soul sleep", or a post-death awareness prior to the resurrection of the body, makes what difference?"

~ Everything. Because the false churches set up by Satan have taught "another christ." And believing in this false christ, one also believes in the pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Paul told the Corinths, "this mortal must put on immortality..." We are mortal!!! We must put on immortality!!! We do not possess an immortal soul. This is a doctrine of the devil and the false church.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
52 posted 2002-11-30 03:10 PM


"As to your belief in "soul sleep", the Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in the same... hence an example of denominational religion that believes and potentially uses that to gain converts,"

~ I won't deny this fact, neither should I care. To say, that the false churches established do not include smaller churches would be illogical. Satan, who deceives the whole world, including the Mother Church and her Harlot Daughters, also will most certainly have smaller churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses to throw people off even moreso. But that doesn't mean that Satan isn't smart enough to mix truths with lies. I have found that many denominations have some truth to them, but still they are of the false churches.

"I say that to point out the fact that ANY doctrine can be used to get money if that it is the motive behind it."

~ Excellent point. So, the true Church, and there can be only one, does not seek to gain monetary weatlth.

"Is that the motive behind the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine?"

~ I don't know. They may indeed be sincere. In fact, in the Bible studies of which I attended, there were several members of the Jehovah's Witnesses. According to my witnessing of their behaviour, I would say that at a layman's level, no.  However, sincerity does not mean jack crap.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
53 posted 2002-11-30 03:19 PM


Opeth,

thanks for taking this one step at a time.  

Okay.  You are asserting that this episode was merely a vision of a future event.  Yet what persuasion, scripturally speaking, can you give to support it from the text?  There is nothing in the account that says that it was merely a vision, nor that it was future.  There is however something there which would refute the idea that this is the future.


Consider Luke's account: 9:30-32

"And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.  And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:  Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.  But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him."


How could they speak of his "decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem" if this were merely a vision of a future event.  It seems the evidence here is in support of a present experience, seeing they are speaking of future things that we know happened pre-resurrection day.


This poses a pretty significant problem to your interpretation.  How can I resolve this and still be honest with what scripture says?


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-30-2002 03:20 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
54 posted 2002-11-30 03:26 PM


"How can you so easily jump from being an agnostic (We cannot know God) to being a recipient of divine revelation, and not only so, but one of the scant few in the universe to be able to get it right!?"

~ I answered this question once before on the other thread, but I will answer it again. After searching for the truth, I came to two conclusions: I was given divine revelation (I am not the only one, btw), or christianity is bogus and we cannot know the existence of god.

And being continuously told that I am wrong...I even had a christian group rebuke me and call me the devil, they actually performed an excorcism on me!!!  It wore on me. Now, if God did give me His divine revelation, then I am failing Him...and my fate would be the Lake of Fire, but I decided to choose the "dormant" route instead. I don't know. Maybe, this is God's plan for my life. It is not a life of inner personal happiness, that is for sure. Maybe that is why I am to suffer, because I am not what I should be...I don't know. I will wait and do what I do...and that is to raise "hell" against mainstream christianity, because I know it is bogus.

"Pardon me, but which Opeth are we to listen to?  I am not making fun of your struggle or attempting to irritate."

~ That was mean spritited, indeed. Yes, your fellow christian friends may jump in and say, no it wasn't, but it was. However, it doesn't matter, as I told you before, I've had much worse, so did Christ and his apostles, btw.

"But in light of all that you said, can you expect someone to really think you've got it figured out?"

~ Absolutely not! Only the Spirit of God can call a person, all others will have no idea what the hell I am talking about, and will call me a loon, they will.

"How easily can some one accept creeds which are apparantly unsettled in even your mind?"

~ You lost me here. If I am to argue the Bible, then what has been revealed to me, is not unsettled.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
55 posted 2002-11-30 03:26 PM


Opeth,

Yes, I am bespeaking you.

It just seems that one should not smite the sayer to try to change the saying, it will not work.  But if you smite the saying itself it might truley change the sayer.
If you think there are flaws about Christianity's saying/reasoning what would you propose as changes to to make it better in these areas, and have Christianity (Christians), the sayer, changed as well?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 03:47 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
56 posted 2002-11-30 03:38 PM


"You still have not addressed such  scriptures as the one where Jesus has rebuke for a church that is doctrinally correct, but without ardent love."

~ Give me a break. Don't mix issues. We are talking about the "laws of God" not men. And of course the laws of God are base in love for God and Christ. I used this same argument against myself, Stephan.

"This suggests to me that your whole conception of the "little flock" has at least the possibility of error."

~ We should only go by what the Bible states, and it states to prove all things and to grow in the grace and knowledge of God, therefore there will be errors, but not on the fundamentals, such as: immortality of the soul, trinity, Sabbath, sin, Holy Days).

"In one sweep, your statements accuse Christendom across the board as crooks, swindlers, and deceivers."

~ Remember, most involved in mainstream christianity, will accept Christ as saviour during the 1000 year Kingdom. This makes your above remark irrelevant.

"The specks become motes, and in eyes you've never seen.  You are not God.  And to be honest I sense very little love in anything you say."

~ So, the truth comes out. You waited quite some time to divulge this information of how you actually feel. Interesting, indeed.

"Remember, "You will know a tree by it's fruit"?  Where is the fruit of the Spirit to at least make the things you say palatable?"

~ By keeping the Laws of God. By doing what Christ says to do. Have you heard of the ten commandments? This is the fruit, that God is waiting for...and no, not just the literal keeping, but IN YOUR HEART. Of course, you won't know what that is until the REAL Spirit of God lives inside of you.


Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
57 posted 2002-11-30 03:44 PM


"If you are really of a Christian concern to help others see, then you will be able to address my honest concerns about your doctrine, by answering the above concern #1 for example."

~ I did answer #1...Do you know how many times that particular scripture was brought to me for proof of mainstream christianity? Countless of times. I was looking for something original.

"You cannot just take honest scriptural concerns, shoot them down, and say you don't want to discuss it with those who aren't "called" and "enlightened" like yourself."

~ Stephan, I have asked you at least 2-3 times to give me an example of a specific, of which you have never replied.

Let me ask you this, since you never answered me, this does work both ways you know?

1. Who impregnated Mary, God the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or all three?

It does make a difference.

2. What is sin? Not your taking, or your preachers, but what does the Bible EXPLICITLY state sin to be? Remember, we cannot add nor take away from the Bible.

3. What about Christ's ressurection. Which day did it occur? What day did he die on?

Very important, indeed.

False christianity breeds a false christ.



Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
58 posted 2002-11-30 03:50 PM


"If you think there are flaws about Christianity's saying/reasoning what would you propose as changes to to make it better in these areas, and have Christianity (Christians), the sayer, changed as well?"

~ Mainstream christianity if false, period.

If what I found to be true is not, then there is no christian god. If what I found to be true, is indeed true, then the masses are not being called at this time, so they don't have to do nothing, God will call them, if He wants it to be so.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
59 posted 2002-11-30 04:03 PM


Stephan,

This is so easy...come on...

"You are asserting that this episode was merely a vision of a future event.  Yet what persuasion, scripturally speaking, can you give to support it from the text?

~ Who is the first born amongst the dead? Christ. Christ, at this point, has not even died. Therefore, without a single solitary doubt, this transfiguration (which according to Strong is a vision) is a future event.

There is no other way to interpret this, unless Christ is not the fist to ascend into heaven. The bible does state the Christ is the FIRST to ascend into heaven. It cannot be Moses or anyone else.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 04:03 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
60 posted 2002-11-30 04:08 PM


If anything, Lukes version of this event confirms that Jesus, himself, is unequaled in comparison to Moses and Elijah, for Peter's understanding, as God tells them that it is Jesus who is His Son, not the others, henceforth, the others no longer appear.

This does not prove Elijah and Moses are alive, nor does it not, but when taken into consideration of the fact that Christ is the first to ascend into the Kingdom of Heaven, we can without a doubt know that it is of a future event.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 05:58 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
61 posted 2002-11-30 06:27 PM


Opeth,


"Who is the first born amongst the dead? Christ. Christ, at this point, has not even died. Therefore, without a single solitary doubt, this transfiguration (which according to Strong is a vision) is a future event."

You are maintaining that the transfiguration was the future vision.  There is nothing to indicate that in the text.  Transfiguration does not mean "a vision".  Check your strongs again Greek word #3339 ... metamorphoo - to transform, metamorphose, change.  Nothing as to future or past is implied.  But we do have that they "talked" about the future event of Jesus' crucifixion.  The only evidence that is in the text is supportive of a present occurence.



"If anything, Lukes version of this event confirms that Jesus, himself, in unequal compared to Moses and Elijah, because God tells them that it is Jesus who is His Son, the other were then gone."

Could you rephrase this?  I really do not understand what you are saying?  That Jesus is superior to Moses and Elijah?  Of course, I agree.  What do you mean by "the others were then gone"?  They weren't gone during the experience.  They were also talking.  Are you saying that this was an illusion so that God could prove Christ's superiority, that Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration scene were apparitions?  You have no scriptural support to say that.  I will point out again, that they were "talking" about what Christ was to accomplish at Jerusalem.  


"This does not prove Elijah and Moses are alive, nor does it not, but when taken into consideration of the fact that Christ is the first to ascend into the Kingdom of Heaven, we can without a doubt know that it is of a future event."


Remember that I do not necessarily agree that Spirits cannot exist consciously apart from the body...  So just because Christ was the first to be ressurected with an eternal body, does not necessarily negate Moses and Elijah as being aware.  You will have to offer a better explanation of what Moses and Elijah represented in these passages.  Are you saying they are holographical, apparitional.... something God did, kind of like a slide projector?  Was all of this "pretend"?  One more time, I will ask... what about the conversation Jesus held with them about his death in Jerusalem, which was prior to his ascension?


"I've had much worse, so did Christ and his apostles, btw."

Your doing it again Opeth...  Now you and your superior revelation are worthy of martyrdom.  This is what Brad was speaking of in the extreme.  I am having trouble believing a scriptural view that you seem unable or unwilling to defend from scripture, and you say that I am persecuting you.  Not true.  I was not poking fun at you.  I was however showing your contradictions.  I am asking you to stick by your guns.  You've waffled around from agnosticism to the "Buddha" position, and that without any willing and patient explanation for those who have questions.  If you have come to the conclusion that you know divine revelation, then tell us that you refute agnosticism.  The two are a contradiction would you agree?  If you still feel that agnosticism has merit, then you have no persuasive claims to divine revelation.  I am not even saying that you have to fully live or realize the revelation that God has given you.  I have many imperfections, faults, sins, but I do not oscillate my position every other day.  I was bringing out the point that you must land on one or the other to convince, or even begin to convince, anyone.  You can view this as an insult, or as tough-friendly advice in using polemics.  You have to be at least somewhat consistent to be even heard.


"Let me ask you this, since you never answered me, this does work both ways you know?"

All of the issues that you raised were never directly aimed at me.  I chose not to take them up at the time.  To be honest, it wasn't a very attractive offer.   You tend to splinter things into a myriad of possible directions when we begin to discuss anything.  One issue becomes suddenly a hundred, which becomes impossible for everyone involved.  I don't want to waste my time, or yours.  If you are willing to discuss one issue at a time, I am willing.  You are the one who is constantly bringing up "The Immortal Soul" doctrine.  I never even heard the term "Immortal soul doctrine" until you brought it up.  But I do believe that your take on scripture may have some serious gaps and problems.  Since you brought this up, and bring this up most frequently, let's start here.  I still need that question about Moses and Elijah addressed...  After we take this one response at a time.  We can address the others.  I'm just not into a free-for-all.  


Stephen.        

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-30-2002 06:48 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
62 posted 2002-11-30 06:54 PM


Maybe you are not carefully reading my replies. I have already said that this one piece of scripture could never prove or disprove what I have come to known. However, when taken in context with other scripture and with other key elements, it is rather easy to understand, to me, anyways...

1. This was a transfiguration. The definition of transfiguration is basically what you called it...like a slide show or television broadcast of an event.

2. The Bible states that no man has ascended to heaven accept Jesus Christ. If this is to be true, then how could Moses and Elijah already be in heaven? They can't be. They are asleep, awaiting the second coming.

3. Taken in context, one could easily argue that the whole purpose of God's Spirit recording this event, was to enlighten the Israelites, certainly Peter included, that Jesus WAS not Elijah, who was prophesied in the OT, but who was John the Baptist read Matt 17:11-13.

4. Moses and Elijah are dead. They are not yet born again. Being born again is the only way to have eternal life. Read 1 Corinthians 15th chapter.

5. Read Acts, where Peter says that all of the OT leaders (Moses, etc) have died without ever receiving their promise, yet.

Taken these scriptures and many others, of which I can not remember from the top of me noggin, it is clear that this story of the transfiguration proves nothing of an immediate life after death.  

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
63 posted 2002-11-30 06:58 PM


It is so simple to me, it makes me lol.

How could anyone be possibly in heaven, when Christ has not yet returned to earth? And when reading the bible, it is only until his return that the first ressurection takes place. Until then, noone is born again. One must be born again, this mortal must put on immortality. Are we to beleive that everyone goes to heaven (who are saved, that is), and when Christ returns they all go back into their bodies for a ressurection? LOL! Only Satan could author this ridiculous and nonsensical occurance. Why would they need to go back to their bodies, if they are already in heaven??!!! LOL!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
64 posted 2002-11-30 07:05 PM


Opeth,

I'm trying to boil this down, to what I see is the root of this discussion on the transfiguration...


"Who is the first born amongst the dead? Christ. Christ, at this point, has not even died. Therefore, without a single solitary doubt, this transfiguration (which according to Strong is a vision) is a future event."


Your view is that the transfiguration has to be a vision of the ressurection in the future.  Because if not, you would be at a loss to explain Moses and Elijah's appearance pre-resurrection day.  

My view is open to the possibility of Saints having an existence of sorts after death, but before the ressurection day.  


Notice that my view provides explanation about the appearance and conversation of Moses and Elijah in which they mention things as if,  1) after their physical death, and 2) before the crucifixion of Jesus... and by implication before the ressurection day.   But your view provides no explanation of this.

Your problem with my view seems to be that since Christ hadn't died, this has to be a vision of a future resurrection.  But my view also has an explanation for this... The glory of the transfiguration as a present glory of Christ, and not merely a future glory.  It is the revelation of his full divine nature that caused his face to shine like the sun.  This would not limit the transfiguration to a future vision, or require us to believe, as you say, that this glory is a future event.  My whole point is that there is no scriptural evidence that this MUST be a future event.  But there is at least some scriptural evidence that it is a present event... namely that Moses and Elijah were talking of Christ's crucifixion as the future.  


I have answered your problem with my view.  How do you answer mine with yours?  You may find my answer unconvincing, and we may discuss what weaknesses you percieve.  But you have yet to offer me any explanation for Moses and Elijah talking as they did.  


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
65 posted 2002-11-30 07:10 PM


Opeth,

"This was a transfiguration. The definition of transfiguration is basically what you called it...like a slide show or television broadcast of an event."


That is precisely what I did NOT call it.  Go back and read my post.  Or better yet read Strong's Greek dictionary.  Transfiguration means a changing, transforming, metamorphosis.  
Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
66 posted 2002-12-02 10:23 AM


1. The transfiguration neither proves or disprovesdoes that Elijah and Moses are alive after death. This scripture, by itself, would be considered at secondary evidence. One must start with thte primary evidence.

2. The transfiguration can be intrepreted your way, yes. But to me, this is clearly a future event, and was shown to the apostles in order to show them that Jesus is above Moses and Elijah, that He is God's son and the Kingdom which is to come on this earth. With God all is possible. I have no qualms that they are speaking of events that may have or have not yet taken place.

3. This was a vision of a time to come.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 11:45 AM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
67 posted 2002-12-02 10:33 AM


Opeth:

What do you mean by "primary" and "secondary" evidence?

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
68 posted 2002-12-02 11:17 AM


Concerning the Dead and the Transfiguration

Primary evidence of “soul sleep.” Primary evidence is what I call scripture that directly deals with the subject of an existence or non-existence immediately after death up until the Second Coming of Christ.

John 3:13

Jesus is the only one to ascend into heaven, he says this himself. For any of us to add or take anything away from this scripture based on what we may think, would be done so in vain.

So, where are Moses and Elijah if Christ is the only One to ascend into heaven? We cannot, with a carnal mind, just make something up because we want to believe a certain way.

Now what about the saints of the OT…are they in heaven? Have they received their rewards?

Heb 11:8-10,13

Clearly, to argue against this is to use the carnal mind. It states that these have died in faith and have not yet received their promise after their death all the way up until this passage was written.

Which leads to another question, what was "the promise?" Heaven? Hmmm…

Let’s see if Christ disputes the state of Abraham and the prophets. Are they alive in heaven or are they dead and buried?

John 8:52-53

Here is a passage where certain Jews were debating Christ and claimed that Abraham and the prophets were dead, not alive in heaven, but dead; a perfect opportunity for Christ to correct their misbelief by telling them that they are no longer dead, but alive in Heaven. But Christ never disputes this fact that they are indeed, dead. Compare this with the Hebrews verse above. The coincide with each other.

Psalm 146:4

When a person dies, the spirit of that person returns to God and his thoughts (consciousness) perish. The only hope for eternal life then rests in the resurrection, and being born again into the Kingdom.

Psalm 115:7

The dead do not praise God. Why? Because they are dead. I mean, if they were in heaven they most certainly would be praising God, right?

The Spirit of God inspired David to write the Pslams and did so for a purpose...Until the resurrection occurs, they will remain that way, dead.

There is more, but I will stop here…these are examples of primary evidence in showing the state of existence or non-existence of person upon death. Not one person is in heaven at this time. Also, it should be noted that Heaven will come to earth, and the reward of the saved is not heaven, but the Kingdom of God, as the true Gospel exclaims.

It hurts to think that those we loved who have died are just dead in the ground. That is one reason why, and main reason at that, the human race created the belief in an immediate afterlife, it is a comforting thought, for sure.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 11:53 AM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
69 posted 2002-12-02 12:19 PM


Opeth:

I think it is important for you to consider the nature of the Old Testament promise before you consider following your current line of reasoning too far.

The "promise" since "the fall" was that God would reconcile man to Himself.  Remember the "bruise his heel" and "crush his head" lines in Genesis?  This was the earliest revelation of the then future Gospel or "good news" that man would be redeemed.

As God revealed more about his promise to the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, the Hebrew people were given a clearer picture of what this future promise would be.  Sure, eternal life is the result of God keeping his promise but, according to the Christian, it was faith alone in the future promise of God to redeem mankind that comprised the "Gospel" of the Old Testament.  It wasn't strict adherence to the Law that saved, but rather faith in the future fulfillment of God's promise that saved (otherwise, the Pharisees would have been the holiest of the holy).  I think the Epistle to the Hebrews makes this abundantly clear.  

Just as the object of Christian faith surrounds events that transpired 2000 years ago, the object of the pre-messianic Jewish faith was the future fulfillment of God's promise.  Same object of faith from different points in time, both focused toward a historical event ... future to the B.C.E. Hebrew and past to Christians.  Those described in the passage of Hebrews you quoted died BEFORE the promise of God was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Just curious ... did you happen to glance at the link I shared earlier in the thread regarding good interpretive practices?  You are still proof-texting and you seem to be using Psalms as (in your words) primary evidence of the truth of the doctrinal position you are defending.  Regardless, the soul-sleep vs. spiritually conscious but dead issue really isn't of primary importance.  Otherwise, don't you think you'd be able to find didactic writings in the Bible describing your after-death state in greater depth?  One view or the other (or an entirely different view) may be correct and, in my opinion, is of little present consequence.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
70 posted 2002-12-02 12:55 PM



1Cor 15:20-23

"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

~ In context, how can one interpret this, but to say that Christ is the first to have arose from the dead and all others are still asleep in the ground.

"For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead."

~ Why need a resurrection if people are already in heaven? Well, the previous verse answers this question...those that have died in faith are still sleeping. The promise, which I will clarify laters, will come to all, at the Second Coming.

but let's continue...

"But each in his own order:"

Ready, follow here what Paul is saying...

"Christ the firstfruits..."

Yes, he alone has ressurected from the dead. So, when will the others be made alive, when will they awake from their sleep?

Let the Bible answer, not man...

"...afterwards those who are Christ's..."

When?

"...at HIS COMING!"

The Second coming, then those who have died in faith will arise, be born again upon their ressurection.

It can't get any easier for me to understand.

Didactic enough, Jim?

Isaiah 54:13

But I understand, it is not for the masses to understand the truth...yet. They will eventually be taught not by man, but by God.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 12:58 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
71 posted 2002-12-02 01:08 PM



1Thes 4:13-17

Are dead people in heaven or are they asleep, awaiting a resurrection?

"But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope."

~ They are dead, asleep, awaiting a resurrection.

"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in faith."

~ Yes, Christ is to return and when he does then comes the first resurrection, where those who have died in faith are raised and born into their spiritual bodies, those alive who are of the called will change into their immortal born again bodies and will meet Christ in the air, whereupon He will set his feet down on this earth as prophesized by Isaiah, to rule the earth.

The Gospel, the True Gospel of God, that the Kingdom of God is at hand!

Notice verse 16...

"For the Lord Himself will desecend from heaven with a shout...And the dead in Christ will rise first."

Verse 17

"Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them...to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord."

~ So, Christ is to do a 180 turn and head back to heaven. No! One cannot just add to this scripture their thoughts and opinions. One must find the answer in the Bible and it is there to find, oh yes.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
72 posted 2002-12-02 01:16 PM



Zech 14:1

Talks about the Great Day of the Lord, the same one in the NT.

What will happen?

"And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives..."

Christ, for sure. No return trip to heaven, but to establish His Kingdom on earth.

Read what Daniel has to say about this same event: The Day of the Lord (the Second Coming of Christ), and those who sleep in the earth!

Dan 12:2

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life (born again), and some to shame and everlasting contempt (lake of fire)."

Completely in context, because this event certainly hasn't taken place. It coincides with the prophecies of the NT.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
73 posted 2002-12-02 01:33 PM


So what of the promise by God to Abraham. Let us not go by what man says. Let's go by what the scriptures say.

Gen 13:14-15

And God spoke to Abraham...

"Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are - northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants FOREVER!"

This is the promise made to Abraham.

Has this promise been yet given? No. Abraham never inherited the entire earth and is still asleep in the ground...So, has God gone back on His promise?

Absolutely not. Christ confirms the promises are still intact, read...

Rom 15:8

Because when Christ estbablishes His Kingdom on earth, THEN the promise will be fulfilled. Now a Christian might say, what about us Christians, what do we have to do with Abraham and the promise? Everything! Because when you are truly called and given the Spirit of God, you become a spiritual child of Abraham. You become one of his descendants!

Gal 3:7

"Therefore know that only those who are of faith..."

Paul speaking about Christians

"...are SONS (spiritually) of Abraham!"

and therefore, heirs to the promise!!!

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 01:43 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
74 posted 2002-12-02 01:40 PM


Opeth:

In the majority of the verses you've cited, the subject of paramount importance is the resurrection.  The terms "sleep" or "asleep" should not be stretched to mean more than physical death without good reason.  Regardless of their post-mortem spiritual state (aware or unaware), those who have "fallen asleep" are not accessible to us any more than they were to 1st century Christians.  

Do the verses you quoted support that the resurrection of believers is a future event (at least for Paul)?  Of course they do.  Do they necessarily shed light on the state of consciousness of departed souls?  I'm not convinced that they do.  Regardless, the issue is moot ... it makes no difference one way or another to either the living or the dead if disembodied souls are awake or asleep.  Of primary importance is that Christ's resurrection provides us with assurance that, one day, we too will be physically restored, yet without death.

I'm not in 100% disagreement with you on these points, Opeth.  The doctrine of the resurrection is of extreme importance to the Christian.  I simply believe you are overstating the importance of things that are not necessarily crucial to orthodox faith.  I am just as convinced that you will not be judged harshly for believing in a soul-sleep as I am that I will not be judged harshly for deciding that the issues should not be distracting me from more important things.

One of the hallmarks of "mainstream Christianity," by the way, is the overemphasis of secondary and trivial theological matters (some call these things "distinctives").  They tend to divide Christians rather than unite them around the important message of the Gospel.  This is why I've found the seemingly simple Lutheran "Law & Gospel" hermeneutic so appealing.  It has a way of bringing the focus back to where it should be ... to the person, works and promises of Jesus Christ.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
75 posted 2002-12-02 01:51 PM


I wholeheartedly disagree with you, Jim.

False christianity exists today.
It is the majority because Christ called His flock a little one.
The true church would never be divided on issues. The Bible clearly states this fact.
The false gospel of Satan and of his ministers of rightousness have fused pagan beliefs with truths. The immortal soul doctrine is pagan without a doubt.

Btw...what is the Gospel that you are talking about. Tell me, what was the Gospel of Christ? What does the Bible say it is?

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
76 posted 2002-12-02 01:54 PM


False christianity preaching another christ based on false doctrine...

Trinity
Immotral Soul (eternal punishing)
The reward of the saved
Pagan Holidays
The Sabbath (especially)
The Business of saving souls as the gospel, the false gospel, indeed.

The Mother Church and the Harlot Daughters of Revelations, indeed.

Remember, it is the denominations, the false churches, that rile me on the inside, not the people who attend them. I have nothing against you or anyone else for that matter in believing what you believe. For, if one is not being called at this time, they are not guilty of anything.

The majority of church going people will eventually be saved, no doubt.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 01:58 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
77 posted 2002-12-02 02:30 PM


Jim,

Think about it. If a false christ or another christ is prophecized to be taught by Satan's ministers of rightousness, then how do you think they could accomplish this feat?

The progression of questions would have to be this:

1. Does the Bible teach that false christianity exists today?

If one answer yes, go to the next question.

2. If it does exist, and Jesus calls His true flock a little flock, then where in the christian churches does false christianity lie?

To me, the Bible is clear on how these two questions should be answered. I have given scripture which clarifies these answers.

But for the sake of argument, say that false christianity does indeed exist, preaching christ, but another christ a false christ. How do they accomplish this? What would they teach that misleads and beholds a false christ to the masses of christians?

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 02:32 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
78 posted 2002-12-02 02:33 PM


I'm sorry for going off topic, but how come the word "pagan" always seems to be carried with a connotation of "evil" "false" "wrong"?  Are you these things just for being a believer in different things?  For seeing God or "Gods" in different things and different ways?  If pagan things are an influence on the literature, it is only false to deny that, but it doesn't make it false or wrong for being that, in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-02-2002 02:39 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
79 posted 2002-12-02 02:35 PM


Essorant,

I am arguing from a Biblical standpoint.

For example, if Augustine and Aquinas use Socrates and Platos belief of the immortality of the soul and stamp it factual, according to the bible, this is an abomination to God. Because their belief is "pagan" in nature, not of the Spirit of God. The Bible is clear on this matter. One cannot mix the carnal mind of man with the truth of His Spirit.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-02-2002 02:47 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
80 posted 2002-12-02 03:37 PM


quote:
Btw...what is the Gospel that you are talking about. Tell me, what was the Gospel of Christ? What does the Bible say it is?


That Jesus Christ was born, lived blamelessly, died on the cross as a perfect atonement for our sins, was raised from the dead for our justification on the third day, and ascended into heaven with a promise to return.

Very simple.  Paul often spoke of how he preached this "simple" message of Christ crucified and risen from the dead, rather than by cleverly devised arguments.  Fallen man, wholly incapable of pulling himself up by his own bootstraps, was redeemed by an act of grace as God promised.

A few notes on your other posts:

1. The New Testament supports both the full humanity and full deity of Christ. How do you reconcile this with your denial of the Trinity?

2. How do your other examples of "false doctrines" deny the person and work of Jesus Christ?

3. Why are you suggesting that "pagan = bad" when even Luke and the Apostle Paul quoted pagan poets and philosophers in their works?  Did Paul's study of the works of Epiminides influence his writing?  Does that make the writings of Paul "less inspired"?

4. How do you reconcile your eschatological view with that fact that wide-spread acceptance of pre-tribulationism and pre-millenialism are products of the modern-day "mainstream" Christianity you decry and were, in fact, considered erroneous by both the reformers and the early church fathers?

My point is that, with the exception of my first note, there is room for opinion in Christianity without need to fear treading into the realm of apostasy.  Denominationalism does not necessarily mean rampant heresy.  In many instances, the "distinctives" I mentioned are recognized my their members as being secondary, while the orthodox Gospel is taught just as clearly as in the church next door.

Merely my, opinion, of course.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
81 posted 2002-12-03 09:58 AM


"That Jesus Christ was born, lived blamelessly, died on the cross as a perfect atonement for our sins, was raised from the dead for our justification on the third day, and ascended into heaven with a promise to return."

~ That is most definitely good news, includes elements of the True Gospel, but what you stated is not the Gospel according to the true Saviour.  

~ Remember, we as men cannot state what the gospel is, or what we think it is, but only from what the Bible states. What did Jesus say the Gospel was? What about Paul, what did he say the Gospel was?

Let's see what the Bible states, not man...

Luke 10:9

Jesus is giving instructions to his apostles about how to go about spreading the Gospel. Nothing is mentioned here about His birth, His death, sin atonement, etc, but the Gospel

"The Kingdom of God has come near to you!"

What is the TRUE Gospel?

Mark 1:14-15

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God! Christ is the King, not a baby in swaddling clothes or a dead person on a cross as pictured in the crucifix, but a living KING!

Luke 9:1-2

Back to Luke, what did Christ send His apostles to do?

"He sent them to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick."

Jim, this is not what you stated as the Gospel to be. The true Gospel is all about the coming Kingdom of God.

"Very simple.  Paul often spoke of how he preached this "simple" message of Christ crucified and risen from the dead, rather than by cleverly devised arguments."  

~ Sure, he spoke of this, but it is not the Gospel of Christ the King of which Paul spoke of...

Acts 19:8

Paul speaking boldly of The Kingdom of God.

Acts 20:25

Paul exhorting the Ephisian elders: "And indeed, now I know that you all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God..."

Acts 28:23

Paul testifying about the Kingdom of God.

Acts 28:31

And finally, what were the final lines of Acts?

"The Paul...received all who came to him,


notice people came to him, and what Gospel did he preach after they came to him?

"...preaching the Kingdom of God..."


~ Jim, you never mentioned the Kingdom of God as the Gospel. Your church doesn't teach the True Gospel?

So, is the Kingdom of God today's Christian churches? I was told this by many a christian preacher and scholars. I didn't take their word for it and checked the Bible, myself. Here is what I found...

1Cor 15:50

"...Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God..."

~ We are flesh and blood, true christians are heirs, but have not yet inherited the Kindom of God because we are flesh and blood. Not until the Second Coming when Christ sets up THE KINGDOM OF GOD! The True Gospel!

Still not convinced? Let's take a look into the future...

Rev 5:10

This states that those born again as priests and kings to the Lord will rule on earth in the Kingdom of God.

Rev 20:4-6

Describes the 1000 year Kingdom of God on earth, the first resurrection is mentioned here.

Rev 11:15

The Seventh trumpet proclaiming what news? What good news? Which Gospel, the one your church teaches, Jim, or the Gospel of God, of the Bible?

"The Kingdoms of this world have become..."

Yes!?

"...The Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!"


The True Gospel is fulfilled.

Let's look at how this was prophecized in the OT...

Dan 2:44

"And in the days of these kings of God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break to pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever."

~ Matches Revelations to the T.

Dan 7:13-14

Basically states the same thing, that Christ is going to set up the Kingdom of God on earth.

~ This is the True Gospel according to God, not man.


[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-03-2002 10:10 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
82 posted 2002-12-03 10:17 AM


"The New Testament supports both the full humanity and full deity of Christ. How do you reconcile this with your denial of the Trinity?"

~ I let the Bible answer that for me, Jim. The Gospel according to John is a great place to start. In the beginning there was God and there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (paraphrasing).

If I would stop right there, it would appear that the nature of God is twofold, not three.

From my studies, I have found this...that the Holy Spirit is how God (Elohim) accomplishes things, here on earth. The Bible mentions in Genesis, that "the Spirit of God moved over the earth" This same Spirit is the HS in the NT.

God the Father
God the Son (Groom)
The True Church (Bride)

And when the Second Coming occurs, those Born Again are the Children of the Union between Christ and His Chruch. Those saved become Gods children = Gods. Of course, in a role that say your son is to you, Jim. I mean, what does your church teach, that we become angels? Or, we remain human in some form? The Bible is clear, that we become Children of God.

The Trinity limits God and is actually based on pagan Egyptian religion.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
83 posted 2002-12-03 10:21 AM


"How do your other examples of "false doctrines" deny the person and work of Jesus Christ?"

~ The bible states that "another christ" will be taught, Jim, not me.

Satan deceives the whole world.
False christianity has already infiltrated the churches during writings of the Bible.
Even Satan appears as a minister of righteousness, including his false ministers preaching another christ.

And since Christ's true followers are a small flock...

Satan established false christianity, preaching doctrines and traditions of men, that Christ warned about.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-03-2002 11:09 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
84 posted 2002-12-03 10:59 AM


"Why are you suggesting that "pagan = bad" when even Luke and the Apostle Paul quoted pagan poets and philosophers in their works?  Did Paul's study of the works of Epiminides influence his writing?  Does that make the writings of Paul "less inspired"?

~ Are you suggesting that God will mix non-christian (pagan) philosophies or "ways" with his truth? That God would condone His Word mixing with the carnal mind of man? Are you saying that Paul injected pagan philosophy into the Gospel and the truths of what Christ taught?

Does God condone the ways of pagans?

What does the Bible say?

Let's see...

Col 1:9-10

Paul explains to the Colls about gaining in knowledge of God's will and spiritual understanding. This can only occur if one has received the Spirit of God.

~ But more directly, Jim. Let me answer your question about injecting pagan philosophy and ways into Christianity...

Col 2:8


"Beware lest anyone cheat you through..."

~ Through what, brother Paul?

"...philosophy and empty deceit..."

~ Philosophy! I am sure that Socrates and Plato and all the other non-christian philosophers are included, Jim...but let us continue...

Philsophy according to whom or what?

"according to the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."

~ Could this be even any easier to understand that you cannot mix the carnal mind of man (philosophies, ways of the world) with Christian doctrine and teachings.

That Augustine and Aquinas would actually quote Plato on the belief of the immortal soul and STAMP it as a christian doctrine, is an abomination to the Lord God.

False Christianity crept into the chruches then, and how has it grown throughout the years...

Prov 14:12

Men, without the Spirit of God, think they know what is right, but there ways end in death. I guess that is why Peter said this...

Acts 5:29

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
85 posted 2002-12-03 11:05 AM


"...wide-spread acceptance of pre-tribulationism and pre-millenialism are products of the modern-day "mainstream" Christianity you decry..."

~ You will have to explain what you mean here. I don't get it.

However, I do know this, once Constantine established christianity as the True religion, this is when the True christians were tortured and eventually scattered throughout the lands. These true Christians kept the Sabbath and other true Christian High Sabbaths, not Easter and Christmas, the pagan false christian holidays. Constantine was never a true christian, but a false one, indeed.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
86 posted 2002-12-03 01:53 PM


Opeth:

Pretribulationalism is the belief that Christ will return for believers prior to a literal seven year tribulation period.  Pre-millenialism is the belief in a literal, future 1000-year earthly reign of Christ with the elect after which time the Adversary will do battle with Christ and be banished to the Lake of Fire.

The reformers ascribed to a different eschatological (regarding the end-times) view point and considered "Chiliasm" (pre-trib and pre-millenial views) to be error.

It wasn't until the second "Great Awakening" in America during the early 19th century that these eschatological views became popular again.  Now, they are more-or-less the prevaling eschatological views of modern, evangelical Christianity.  They become even more popular as pop-culture perpetuates these teachings (e.g., Timothy LeHay's "Left Behind" series, the "Damien" movies).

My point, Opeth, is that your theology is shaped as much by your past indoctrination as it is by your apparent revelatory experiences.  You've probably never considered the merits of reformed eschatological views.  Rather, it appears that you've assumed that these portions of what you have been taught are true.

They may be.  I cannot be 100% certain.  But I think the amillenial position has great merit.

Regarding your question pertaining to my views on the Gospel of the Kingdom, I think I can answer your question easily enough.  In summarizing the Gospel to you, I was naturally borrowing from Lutheran teachings.  Martin Luther wrote in the Schmalkaldic Articles, "Here is the first and chief article: (1) That Jesus Christ our God and Lord, 'was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification' (from Romans 4:25)."

The establishment of the Kingdom of God Christ announced and predicted (the Kingdom is both present and future, you know) is implicit in Luther's "chief article".  With Christ's advent, Scripture was fulfilled and, truly, the "Kingdom of God [was] at hand."  With his resurrection, the dominion of sin over mankind was broken.  Death, the penalty for sin, was defeated.  This provides the Christian with the hope that, at some future date, he or she will also experience the resurrection and glorification experienced by Christ.  The resurrection of believers will also mark the final establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

So, salvation and the Kingdom of God are related.  Both have past, present and future attributes and both are related directed to what Luther summarized in the "chief article" written in his Schmalkaldic Articles.

Granted, as right as Luther was about justification, he was very, very wrong about other things including his anti-semitic views later in his life, and his contention that the mentally retarded were bodies without living souls.  But all human beings are wrong about one thing or another during their lifetimes ... including Jim and Opeth.

In short, of course I believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom.  I just don't think it is as distinct from my summary as you appear to.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
87 posted 2002-12-03 02:07 PM


Jim,

If you believe that the Gospel is the Kingdom of God, then why didn't you just say that is what the Gospel is when you first answered my question?

If someone were to ask me, "Mike, what is the Gospel of Christ?" I would say to him or her, the Bible states that the Kingdom of God is coming, here on this earth. Christ is the King. He reigns now in heaven, but He is to return and bring His Kingdom here on earth. I would not try to "save them." I would not hand them pamphlets of how they are to perish in hellfire if they don't accept Christ as their saviour, because that is NOT the Gospel.

Also, as for Martin Luther...I will use this analogy...if a false seed is planted and what grows forth from that seed is what appears to be truth, it just can't be, because the seed planted was false to begin with...

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-03-2002 02:10 PM).]

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
88 posted 2002-12-03 02:16 PM


"(the Kingdom is both present and future, you know..."

~ It was at hand then, because Christ was here on earth, but even still when asked by Pilot, "So, you are a King, where is your Kingdom." Christ told him that His Kingdom was not yet of this world. (John 18:36) And so, as it is today. Didn't you read the scripture I quoted. The Kingdom is not the church today. It is clear from the bible that it can't be. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. True Christians are heirs to the Throne, but they have not yet inherited it.

False doctrine would lead one to believe that the Kingdom of God is established in one's heart or church, but that is a doctrine and tradition of men.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-03-2002 02:18 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
89 posted 2002-12-03 02:18 PM


Jim,

quote:
If you believe that the Gospel is the Kingdom of God, then why didn't you just say that is what the Gospel is when you first answered my question?


Because that does not comport with the patterns I see in the preaching of the Apostles.  Let's not get the cart before the horse or attempt to divorce the Kingdom from the message of Christ crucified and raised from the dead.  Especially a personal appropriation of the latter truth directly impacts whether the future, full establishment of the former is good news or bad news to you.

quote:
If someone were to ask me, "Mike, what is the Gospel of Christ?" I would say to him or her, that the Kingdom of God is coming, here on this earth. Christ is the King. He reigns now in heaven, but He is to return and bring His Kingdom here on earth. I would not try to "save them." I would not hand them pamphlets of how they are to perish in hellfire if they don't accept Christ as their saviour, because that is NOT the Gospel.


Well, that is not exactly what I would do either.  I cannot save anyone.  All I can do is share what I've learned an hope it benefits someone.

Just curious ... how do you explain to them how they can access the benefits of this future Kingdom?  Where does "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" play into your theology?

quote:
Also, as for Martin Luther...I will use this analogy...if a false seed is planted and what grows forth from that seed is what appears to be truth, it just can't be, because the seed planted was false to begin with...


The same can be said for the Gospel according to Opeth.  But you beg the question of the falsehood of Luther's "seed".  In my view, it is consistent with the teachings of the Apostles and early church Fathers insomuchas the emphasis on Christ's works are concerned.  An analogy, by itself, is insufficient to demonstrate Luther's alleged error.

Don't ya think?

Jim

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
90 posted 2002-12-03 02:22 PM


Geeze, I can't keep up with you and I've gotta be getting back to work.  But I don't think I've made my position on the nature of the Kingdom as clear as I could have (I wasn't trying to).  For now, I think it is fair to say that my view is not exactly what you assume it to be.

More later.

Jim

[This message has been edited by jbouder (12-03-2002 02:29 PM).]

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » The Christian Afterlife

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary