The nature and destiny of man

Why was he alive? The equation is: body plus breath of life equals a living soul. But, somehow you are injecting a spirit into the mix.

What does "...the spirits of just men made perfect", (Hebrews 12:23) mean"?

When a man is resurrected he can take up where he left off. But in the meantime, in between time, we ain’t got fun. (Sorry, I was thinking of an old song).When we’re dead, we got nuthin’.

Looks like Moses, Elijah, and Paul (and some other Biblical characters) didn't get the memo. What were Moses and Elijah doing conversing with Jesus on the mountain? Didn't they know Ecclesiastes 9:10? Why did the disciples see something that according to you, is impossible?

Man is not a spirit. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be a man.

Just as with "soul" and "man", "spirit" and "man" are not convertible terms, as if one were the meaning of the other. So no one says merely that man is "a spirit". We, as the Bible does, refer to man as having a spirit.

The Bible talks of three classes of created beings (at least that’s all I can find – maybe you can help me find some additional classes of beings). All I can find are angels, spirits and man.

Angels, whether fallen or not, are spirits.

Man never becomes an angel when he dies.

No one ever says that man ever becomes an angel, when he dies or otherwise. You are attacking a straw man.

Nor does he become a spirt being. And the reverse never happens. Angels never become men, nor do spirits.

No one says they do. Men do not "become" spirits. Please stop mischaracterizing our position. Men already have a spirit that cannot die.

When among the living, a man is a live man.

Then what does, "Let the dead bury their own dead, and follow me", mean? How could a dead man bury a dead man, unless he can be alive in one sense while dead in another? What does, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers", and "anyone who does not love remains in death", mean? What does, "... she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives", mean? What does, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" mean?

Cordially,

101 posted on 06/16/2008 12:26:15 PM PDT by Diamond

I quoted and said: “Later Jewish tradition locates ‘Paradise’ as an abode of the righteous dead in Hades, however the apocryphal books do not!” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4). Notice that it is according to later Jewish tradition that Paradise is said to be located in the Hadean realm. This is not the teaching of inspired Scripture. Not even the Apocrypha locates Paradise in Hades. Nowhere in the Bible is Paradise ever associated with some so-called “intermediate state or realm” for the dead. This doctrine originated with men a couple of centuries after the Apostles, and is not taught in Scripture. (Note: I'll speak on this last sentence shortly.)

With all due respect, your assertion that Paradise as representing an intermediate state or realm of the dead did not originate until centuries after the Apostles tells me that you do not know what you are talking about. When was F19 T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 72. 2. Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. written, anyway?

It is apparent to me that you didn't seem fit to quote some of my other statements concerning this. How about this one: "The word Paradise is of Persian origin. It was incorporated into the Hebrew language during the time of Persian influence, and passed into the Greek language through its extensive use by Xenophon (c. 430–350 BC)."

I have to admit that after I posted the article I realized that I left out a rather important word in one of the sentences I made. And it is my own fault that I didn't post a correction immediately after that post. Here is the way it should have read: "This Christianized doctrine originated with men a couple of centuries after the Apostles, and is not taught in Scripture." By leaving out that word what I meant was not put forth, and was misleading - my fault and I'm sorry for that misunderstanding.

Your own authority, Bullinger, with whom you are in agreement about the state of the dead, contradicts you and acknowledges that this belief was current among the Jews of Jesus' day:

Bullinger is no more my authority than he is yours. Just because I may quote from someone else does not, in any way, mean that I hold him as an authority, nor do I necessarily agree with all that person says. I only quote to show that others have reached, by the quote, what I have found out in my own studies. You should understand that, for you quoted from him. Should I call him your authority? Absolutely not!

So which is it, contemporary or "centuries later"?

It is both. Contemporary with the time of Jesus, and even earlier - around 400 years earlier by my reckoning. And centuries later concerning the time period that this teaching of pagans was incorporated into Christian thought. Is that satifactory to you?

I said: "Corinthians 12:4 where Paul says he was “caught up into Paradise;” probably equivalent to the “third heaven” of vs. 2, which many biblical scholars suggest signifies being in the very presence of God in heaven (although this event may have been more vision than literal journey, as Paul himself acknowledges)."

Paul acknowledges no such thing. The problem you have, and cannot answer is this; if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, how could Paul, as a honest man, much less an Apostle say that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body?

I think you are nit-picking here. What I said in the brackets is the same thing you said in your last line, but not in the same words.

I quoted: “And he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise’” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

And again I quoted: “And said to him the Jesus, Indeed I say to thee today, with me thou shalt be in the Paradise” (marginal reading in The Emphatic Diaglott, by B. F. Wilson in the 1800's).

Further, with all due respect to you as a person, the fact that you are quoting the New World "Translation" of the Holy Scriptures as having any credibilty as a "translation" is pathetically ignorant. Fred Franz, et al knew about as much Greek and Hebrew as my cat.

Credibility is not why I quoted from the JW's bible. I quoted from it to show that translators have also understood what I found out in my studies. I hope you noticed that I quoted from more than one translation to show the same thing. I am hardly a follower of the JW's. I wonder who should be calling who a pathetically ignorant person? Jumping to conclusion is the only exercise some people get.

The issue does not turn on punctuation for us as it does for you. "Such support a good cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause must be discredited by it." The punctuation of the verse is of little consequence to orthodox Christians. Our theology is not impacted negatively if the comma occurs after "today" instead of before.
A discussion of some of the assertions that you have repeated can be found here: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Your quote from that Web site explains a lot to me. Yet, when reading the commentary on this topic, and more later down the page, I notice that their view is Platonic, and follows the view introduced into Christianity a couple of hundred years after Jesus walked the earth. Jesus never taught what that view teaches. I care not to discuss that in this thread.

102 posted on 06/16/2008 9:49:17 PM PDT by Truth Defender (History teaches, if we but listen to it; but no one really listens!)

To: Diamond; Overwatcher

This is your statement to Overwatcher:

The Sadducees did not believe in disembodied sprits either, just like you. However, the Pharisees did, as can be proven from the Talmud. Paul solemnly affirmed in a dispute before both the Pharisees and the Saducees on this point that he as a Pharisee adhered to the Pharisees with respect to BOTH tenets: 1. spirits; angel or human, and 2. the resurrection. Paul claimed the same belief as the Pharisees, as opposed to the beliefs of the Sadducees, who denied both disembodied spirits and the resurrection. For the third time, I am telling you that this particular doctrine of the Pharisee that you ridicule, Paul solemnly affirmed.

I'm suppressing a mirthful laugh :-) Paul never said that he believed the Pharisees doctrines; in fact, Paul said that he counted whatever he had as a Pharisee to be as dung, rubbish! See Philippians 3:2-11. Gotcha, just as you accused me of doing the same thing, putting words into Paul's mouth!

FYI:Some tell me that after years of "intense and extensive research and study" into the nature of man and the nature of final punishment I should have perfected my beliefs. I still have not arrived at perfection of perception with regard to this matter. My only defense, I suppose, is that God has chosen to create me finite, and thus I shall likely always struggle in my attempt to grasp the realities of the Infinite. In the course of these years, and through this intensive inquiry, I have come to a very firm conviction of what I believe God's Truth to be. Do I still have questions? Absolutely. Do I at times find myself puzzling over some passage in Scripture or some challenge posed to me by a fellow disciple? Yes, I do. By engaging in further study, though, I generally come to an acceptable and rational understanding of those issues, but in a few cases the research and reflection continue. I don't profess to have "arrived!" Frankly, I would be highly skeptical of anyone who had any other experience with their quest to perceive the eternal Truths of our God. None of us have yet attained perfect knowledge or understanding; thus, we all continue to face challenges, from without and within, to our beliefs and practices. I doubt that any honest Christian is any different.

Some have seemingly implied, at least that was my perception of their comments, that years of intense study should have produced within me an absolute certainty with no further doubts. I do indeed know some people who feel, and don't hesitate to assert, that they have arrived at perfect perception of virtually every eternal truth. I do not arrogantly claim such infallible insight, however. I am merely a finite, fallible student of the Word who often has far more questions than answers. The more I study, the stronger my convictions become. That is true. However, I shall never attain to that state of absolute perfection of perception that some of my fellow disciples seem to believe they themselves have already acquired. Thus, I shall continue to admit to others that my inquiries continue, as does my quest for better understanding of some things that occasionally puzzle me.

Let me stress this, however ... and I'm sure that others will agree: This discussion between us is not about one man "winning" and the other "losing." This is about a mutual quest for ultimate Truth in the matter of the nature of man and the final disposition of the wicked. In the course of this exchange I will readily acknowledge those areas, as we come to them, where I may still struggle with a lack of perfect comprehension of God's purpose. I would hope they would do the same (unless they perceive themselves to be beyond such personal struggle). We shall progress from point to point logically, with weaknesses and strengths of both positions becoming evident to the readers of this discussion. Our purpose, I pray, is simply to present both perspectives to the public, as fully and honestly as we can, and allow them to determine for themselves, in light of the Word, which position, if either, better conveys ultimate Truth!

We are brethren, after all, I hope, and our common purpose is to glorify our God and more perfectly perceive His will for our lives. Thus, I shall avoid, as I hope others will, anything that might lead us into a tense, less than civil and Christian exchange with one another.

It is obvious that others will differ over the subject matter of this discussion. We differ greatly, and are all passionate about our convictions. We also are unlikely, realistically, to convert the other to our own point of view, although both of us are likely hopeful. The reality, therefore, is that in the course of this discussion we will need, at times, to simply acknowledge we are unable to come to agreement on some point and move on to the next logical point in our exchange. To expect one of us to concede to the other on each point before progressing to the next is unrealistic and will only succeed in bringing this discussion to an untimely demise. Again, we shall each present our position to the best of our individual abilities, and then we shall need to leave the matter in the hands of the readers.

I doubt that I have ever encountered a single person with whom I agreed 100% on everything. Indeed, I'm not sure such is even possible. Thus, it is rare that I will declare absolute agreement with any particular author or book. About the best I will do is to declare I "basically agree" with the overall conclusions of a specific work. That does not necessarily imply that I am aware of specific errors, it's just that I personally do not proclaim unequivocal or unreserved agreement with anyone.

103 posted on 06/16/2008 10:25:32 PM PDT by Truth Defender (History teaches, if we but listen to it; but no one really listens!)

To: Truth Defender

I think the meaning is now fairly clear, depending on precisely what you mean by "Christianized" doctrine, but I obviously disagree with the notion that Biblical doctrines concerning the hereafter are the result of pagan adulteration centuries later.

(although this event may have been more vision than literal journey, as Paul himself acknowledges).

I said,

The problem you have, and cannot answer is this; if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, how could Paul, as a honest man, much less an Apostle say that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body?

You said, ...I think you are nit-picking here. What I said in the brackets is the same thing you said in your last line, but not in the same words.

Your words in parens are not not the same thing as my question at all. It doesn't make any difference whether it was a vision or a revelation as opposed to a literal journey. Obviously, if it was a literal journey then the issue is decided that it is not impossible for a man to live outside of his body, and the doctrine that you call pagan and you hate is actually not pagan at or unscriptural at all. Now, even it was a vision, or a revelation, can you please tell me how, if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, as you like to think, then can you please tell me how Paul could be considered an honest man, not even to mention, an Apostle, and he still say with a straight face TWICE in the same passage that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body? If it were impossible how could he still say as an honest man that he couldn't tell which it was? If it is impossible there is no question as to which it was.

2 Corinthians 12
¹I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. ²I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. ³And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- ⁴was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. ⁵I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. ⁶Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
⁷To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations...

Credibility is not why I quoted from the JW's bible. I quoted from it to show that translators have also understood what I found out in my studies.

Fred Franz and his buddies were not "translators" by any stretch the imagination, they had zero qualifications, and their "translation" is not a translation at all, but only contrived to serve certain heretical beliefs.

I am hardly a follower of the JW's. I wonder who should be calling who a pathetically ignorant person? Jumping to conclusion is the only exercise some people get.

I didn't say you were a follower of the JW's. Why do you accuse me of jumping to the conclusion that you were a JW? I don't like to engage in this type of verbal sparring, but please either show me where I said that you a JW, or in the alternative, retract your false accusation that I jumped to the conclusion that you were a JW. I most certainly did not.

Anyone can be ignorant. I myself am ignorant of many things. However, as just some FRiendly advice from one ignoramus to another; now that you know or have reason to suspect that the NWT put out by the JW's is dubious, you might want to carefully reconsider using it as a credible source, or in any way staking your beliefs upon it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that's hardly a recommendation for relying on it.

Cordially,

104 posted on 06/17/2008 9:09:04 AM PDT by Diamond

To: Truth Defender

Laugh all you want. In Philippians Paul said that he counted whatever he had as a Pharisee to be as dung and rubbish "...compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things." By your omission you wrest it from its context as a relative statement of comparison, by which Paul is indicating anything that comes into competition with Christ.

In fact, to take your sophistry to it's logical conclusion, since Paul said he counts not just his credentials as a Pharisee, but ALL THINGS AS LOSS, one might as well conclude that Paul had abandoned ALL his beliefs; that had no beliefs at all, which is absurd.

In learning, Paul says he was a Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, an eminent doctor of the law: and was a scholar learned in all the learning of the Jews, taught according to the perfect manner of the laws of the fathers, (Acts 22:3). He was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), and after the most strict sect of his religion lived as a Pharisee, (Acts 26:5).

Not only did Jesus tell the Sadducees that they were mistaken about their view of spirits and the resurrection, it is also obvious that Paul also sided with the Pharisees (on this point at least), as opposed to the Sadducees. At one point when he was on on trial for his very life, this is what happened:

Acts 23
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Note, "The Pharisees acknowledge BOTH" - two tenets, not one. Angels and spirits (what other kinds of spirits are there other than angelic, save human?) are the one tenet - the resurrection of the body, the other. The Sadducees deny spirits and a future state. They also denied the resurrection of the body.

Paul said I am [not, "I was" - it is present tense] a Pharisee, in an assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees. He intended to save his life by it. Did he lie, just to get out of a jam? The resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the everlasting existence of man, either in happiness or misery, were believed by the Pharisee.

Did Paul lie? Did he lie when he claimed to be a Pharisee (in the present tense) with respect belief in angels, spirits and the resurrection? Answer me, if you will. Did Paul lie? Did he lie? Did he lie just to save himself? If he did not lie, then it is inescapably true that he did not abandon all his beliefs as a Pharisee, as you falsely allege, and particularly, with respect to his belief in angels, spirits, and the resurrection, your mischaracterization of Philippians 3 notwithstanding. Therefore, I can tell you, too, regretfully so, that what you scoff at, Paul solemnly affirmed.

Cordially,

105 posted on 06/17/2008 10:10:39 AM PDT by Diamond

To: Truth Defender; Diamond; All

TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY IS TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD

I have lost count of the many pastors, preachers, evangelists and teachers who routinely quote the phrase, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord,” in an effort to support their beliefs about death and dying. This quotation is so widely used and almost universally believed that it may seem, at first glance, counterproductive to analyze and even discuss it, let alone scrutinize it. But, since so much doctrine has been built using this phrase as a foundation, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make sure the “Church” and its teachings are on solid footing? Besides, it never hurts to shine the bright light of God’s word on what purports to be the truth. Truth always welcomes and embraces honest searching. On the other hand, darkness and untruth have no fellowship with the light.

Therefore, as a way of introducing a challenge to Orthodox Christianity, and perhaps also to your own way of thinking, I offer the following imaginary evening broadcast of a discussion regarding 2 Cor 5:1-9 involving the Apostle Paul and one of the translators of the KJV who did the work on this section of Scripture. The words of Paul are entirely based on a study written by Otis Q. Sellers entitled, “Absent From the Body,” published in 1966 by his Word of Truth Ministry. I simply take the words Otis wrote about Paul and make Paul as if to say them himself. It seems that people often relate more to what they observe than to what they are told, so I thought it might be helpful to take this approach. Let’s listen in as we try and get Paul’s intended meaning which he had in mind when the he wrote this passage of Scripture.

Remember, though, at the conclusion of tonight’s program, be sure to ask yourself if this is a suitable foundation upon which to base your belief about what happens at death. The question is not concerning what you think about death and what happens at death; rather, the issue is whether this is a suitable passage of Scripture to use as a pillar for supporting such a belief.

Absent from the Body: An evening debate

Announcer: Tonight we have the pleasure to listen in on a televised discussion of that portion of Holy Scripture known as Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 5 and verses 1 through 10, especially verses 6-9. This passage is commonly referred to as, “Absent from the Body.” We are fortunate to have two very qualified guests, the Apostle Paul who is the author of the letters to the Corinthians and one of the Anglican translators of the King James Version of Paul’s letters. The topic being discussed this evening is of particular importance for those of us who would like to have a better understanding of the phrase “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord,” quoted so routinely by pastors, preachers, evangelists and teachers. Most of us believe it means when we die, we go to heaven. There is no question that this verse does seem to give us some comfort when our loved ones die. On the other hand, Scripture is God’s word and a new minority argues that there is great error associated with this phrase from what Paul actually meant. They conclude it is more important that we know the truth of what God said over any temporary false comfort. Up until now we only had debates among scholars about what Paul meant by these words. But tonight we will hear the true meaning of these verses of Paul being elaborated on by none other than Paul himself. It will be interesting to see how much agreement he has with the King James translator, who after all is an expert in the King’s English and should know what the English reader would like to hear.

Moderator: “Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to another in our series of debates concerning important passages in the Word of God. Tonight’s topic is: ‘TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY IS TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD.’ Our guests include the Apostle Paul, who actually wrote these words. We also have with us Mr. Anglican Translator Dude, who worked on the King James Version of the Bible, and was in charge of translating the section under discussion this evening, namely, 2 Corinthians. We’ll just call him Mr. ATD. Thanks for joining us, gentlemen. Let’s get go ahead and get started.”

ATD: “Am I in trouble, or something?”

Moderator: “Hold on, now. Just relax. Let’s just take things a step at a time, shall we?”

ATD: “Okay. Sorry.”

Moderator: “Paul, there is a passage of Scripture, actually the section we are talking about tonight, that has become so important, so prominent, that many major church doctrines are built upon it. So, I thought we should take a very close look at this portion, and we’re especially grateful that you could join us tonight to help our understanding of what you said.”

Paul: “Cool, glad to help. But what is this ‘to be absent from the body stuff?’ “

Moderator: “Well, for example, several years ago a prominent woman evangelist in San Diego died and her funeral was televised on the evening news. The camera homed in on a big banner that read, ‘TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY IS TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD,’ and cited 2 Corinthians 5:8. See, your eloquent teaching about what happens at death has been so thoroughly spread throughout the entire world of Christendom.”

Paul: “Hold on, right there. I never said that!”

Moderator: “Paul, what are you talking about? This is the basis for one of the most widely-held doctrines there is about death and what happens after death! Of course you said it. Everyone knows you did. Why are you denying it?”

Paul: “Read my lips - I never said that! Why don’t you look closely at what I did say?”

Moderator: “Er, uh, okay. Sorry, but I’m kind of surprised at your outburst. Maybe we had better take a look. It’s a good thing we invited the Anglican Translator Dude to join us tonight. He can really help us to know what you actually said.”

Paul: “I think I am the one most qualified to know what I actually said, thank you.”

Moderator: “Of course you are; I just think it’s great that we have the actual translator here this evening to help us out.”

Paul: “Could I take a look and see what was actually written concerning what I said?”

Moderator: “Sure. Here are the pertinent verses. They are found in Chapter 5 of your second letter to the Corinthians. Verses 6-9 are the primary ones to which we are referring, indicating clearly that you are willing to be absent from the body so you could be present with the Lord.”

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

Paul: “Well, those words don’t quite say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord only that I am willing to be; but, it pretty well amounts to the same thing.”

Moderator: “Right, almost everyone quotes it that way. But, if that’s not what you said, nor what you meant, it would mean that people have decided that they knew what you should have said, then quoted what they think you should have said, and finally they quoted their statement as proof positive that what they said is what you said, in this case as proof of what happens to a person at death.”

Paul: “Wow, that was hard to follow, but you are absolutely correct. From this shoddy piece of translation work, and I do mean shoddy in the very meanest sense, they have taken out the word for ‘AND,’ then inserted the word ‘IS,’ in order to make a false statement appear to be a direct quote from the Bible. Also, look at the Greek. There are no Greek words that mean PRESENT or ABSENT in 2 Cor 5:6-9, even though these English words are found five times in this short section. I used two very technically-specific words in writing this epistle, just so there would be no confusion as to what I meant. Actually, the Holy Spirit chose the two words, and I wrote them down.”

Moderator: “Paul, what are those two words?”

Paul: “Endemeo and ekdemeo. For someone to change my words, while arbitrarily adding and deleting whatever they want amounts to a perversion of Biblical testimony, inserted to give support to a false idea – in this case the ridiculous idea that a man can be separated from and exist apart from the organized substance (soil) that makes him what he is, a human being.”

ATD: “But, I didn’t mean to do that. I didn’t really know or understand what you were talking about.”

Moderator: “But weren’t you supposed to represent the sense of what Paul was saying? Isn’t that what a translator is supposed to do? Why didn’t you get some help if you didn’t understand the Greek here, and if you didn’t know what Paul was trying to say?”

Paul: “I have much against you and your shoddy workmanship!”

ATD: “Man, I knew this would all come back to bite me one day!”

Moderator: “Gentlemen, please, let’s keep order here. Paul, what seems to be the problem with his translation of your words?”

Paul: “Well, for one thing it’s not even close to what I said. I wasn’t even talking about death, let alone what happens at death. My subject was ministry, especially mine and that of my fellow apostles. Plus, I was expressing my anguish over the great danger facing my beloved Jerusalem. She was facing imminent destruction at the hands of the Roman Empire. How could someone take my plain writing and twist it so badly into this garbled mess?”

Moderator: “I’d like to tell you to calm down a bit, but I’m becoming rather perturbed myself. You’re saying there is misrepresentation involved?”

Paul: “Yep.”

Moderator: “That’s a pretty serious charge.”

Paul: “It’s a pretty serious matter to trifle with God’s Word – intentionally, or unintentionally.”

ATD: “Oh, man. I should have taken more time, but we were under a lot of pressure.”

Moderator: “Hold on! Let’s see where Paul is going with this.”

Paul: “Before I get into the all the things wrong grammatically, contextually, and historically with this ‘piece of work,’ let me mention that just a few paragraphs before in this very same epistle, I gave fervent thanks unto God for having saved me from a situation, the outcome of which was certain death. Why would I thank God so emphatically for saving me, if ‘to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?’ Furthermore, I wrote in my previous epistle to these same people (1 Corinthians 15) that, ‘if the dead rise not, then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.’ Why would I make such a statement, if the dead, wholly apart from resurrection, are present with the Lord? Does that make any sense?”

Moderator: “No, it doesn’t. What about you, Mr. ATD? What do you think?”

ATD: “Umm, well, now that I think about it - no, it doesn’t make sense.”

Paul: “Well, then, what were you thinking, Dude?”

Moderator: “Paul, please! Let me ask the questions here. Well, then, what
were you thinking, Dude?”

ATD: “Well, ahh, err, uhh, Dude!”

Paul: “If I may be permitted to speak?”

Moderator: “Say on, Paul. We would hear your words.”

Paul: “In Greek philosophy the outstanding idea is ‘the immortality of the soul,’ a phrase which cannot be found in the Word of God. In Biblical truth the outstanding phrase is ‘the resurrection of the dead.’ These two phrases are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. My words in 2 Cor 13:5 should therefore come into play, i.e., we should examine ourselves, whether we be in the faith. Let me explain what I was actually talking about, okay?”

Moderator: “Please continue.”

Paul: “My love for the Corinthian believers to whom this epistle was written could never be doubted. They were the fruits of my ministry in Corinth. In my Corinthian letters I called them my ‘beloved children’ (1 Cor 4:14), declared that they were the seal of my apostleship in the Lord (1 Cor 9:2), said that I would very gladly spend and be spent for them (2 Cor 12:15). But I regretfully complained to them that the more abundantly I loved them, the less they loved me (12:15). From my second epistle it is quite evident that false brethren, feigning great affection for the Corinthians, had broken into Corinth and through subtle criticism and insinuations had destroyed the fine relationship that had existed between me and them.

To reestablish this original good relationship was the main purpose of this epistle. This had to be done through their arriving at a correct understanding of my ministry, my commission, and my afflictions – especially since my trials and sufferings were used by my detractors to cast doubt upon my standing before the Lord. Those who performed divine service in a world alienated from God were sure to experience physical suffering. I and my fellow servants were the objects of many personal attacks. Of me they said, ‘His bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible’ (2 Cor 10:10). I admitted this obvious truth. There was no reason to deny it. I told them that the glorious treasure I dispensed had been placed in an earthen vessel. Earthen vessels were cheap, common, least valued, used with little care, and bound to break sooner or later. This was the metaphor I used to describe my physical being. I told them why God had seen fit to do it this way - ‘That the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.’ 2 Cor 4:7.”

Moderator: “Most people would not be able to handle that positional relationship.”

Paul: “Probably true. It seems my detractors pointed to the constant turmoil in which I was enmeshed as being evidence that God was not behind my efforts. Was it possible that the personal representatives (ambassadors) of the great King could be treated in this manner and He not intervene to put a stop to it? And why should this Paul guy suffer more than others who served this King?

I readily confessed that my fellow workers and I were troubled on every side. But I was quick to point out that the combined efforts of all the powerful forces that opposed us had never brought us to distress (4:8). At times we were perplexed, but never baffled; we were pursued, but never left undelivered; we were cast down, but never destroyed (4:9). Every day we experienced something of the death of the Lord Jesus, but we also enjoyed the life of the Lord Jesus in our mortal flesh (4:10-11). Thus while death worked in us, life worked in those to whom we ministered (4:12).

Those to whom this epistle was written were those who stood as the blessed of God in Corinth. The rich blessings they enjoyed had come to them by us as servants of God who were being hounded and persecuted because of the message we proclaimed. We servants had believed, we had spoken, and we continued to believe and speak the message that was ours. We refused to keep quiet, and we remained courageous in spite of the suffering the continued proclamation of the message brought upon us. Even the threat of death did not deter us. We had confidence that the One who raised up the Lord Jesus would also raise us up (4:13-14). This alone is enough to show that my hope was in resurrection and not in death.”

Moderator: “But, you said also, ‘to die is gain,’ didn’t you.”

Paul: “That’s a whole different subject, and not relevant to this discussion. It has to do with my magnification of Christ, whether I should live or die. Now, a careful study of my first five chapters of Second Corinthians will reveal that a great wave of discouragement had swept over those who had become believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. I plunged into this matter in the opening words of this epistle.

At the time I wrote the words of 2 Corinthians, Jerusalem and all that centered in and around it was threatened with destruction. The city and people had long before been conquered by Rome, but they had never been subjugated. The fires of nationalism and patriotism burned deep within them, and these flared up again and again. Rome looked upon Jerusalem and Israel as threats to the security of the Empire, and voices in Rome were calling out for radical treatment. Ever since the death of Christ, conditions in the land and capital had grown more desperate. Famine stalked the land. The city of Jerusalem and the temple had become the scene of assassinations and massacres as factions in Israel sought to exterminate one another. Members of the Roman army of occupation were being killed almost daily as fanatical Israelites sought to drive them from the land. Rome was making threatening noises that suggested the annihilation of the city and its people.

I started the passages that include our problem verses with ‘Wherefore we are not despondent’ (2 Cor 4:16). We never collapsed, never lost courage, never became cowards. Even though the outer man was wasting away, suffering wear and tear, the inward man was being renewed day by day (4:16). These designations of outer and inner man apply only to a believer. He alone has an inner, renewable life. These little troubles, as I characterized them, were momentary, and they were producing for us servants of God a vastly preponderating and ever-flowing weight of glory. We courageous servants of God were looking all the time not at the visible things, but at the invisible. The visible things were transitory, but the invisible things were ever-flowing (4:17-18).

Thus we see that every statement that precedes the fifth chapter of 2 Corinthians had to do with the ministry, the divine service performed by my companions and me. And there is no digression. The same subject continues as we enter chapter five.

Many were viewing with great alarm the fact that the ‘earthly house’ was going to pieces and in great danger of immediate dissolution. My detractors may have charged that my ministry was speeding the action. At this point I dealt with that accusation.

Chapter 5 begins with contrasting an ‘earthly house’ being ‘dissolved’ with ‘a building of God,’ being ‘eternal in the heavens (5:1) Now, this ‘earthly house’ equates to this tabernacle and is not the human body; and, the ‘dwelling out of God, a house not made with hands’ is not a corresponding heavenly body. If we have bodies ‘eternal in the heavens’ to replace the one destroyed by death, then the resurrection of this present body is undesirable.

A central point being missed in the translation of chapter 5 is the context of its delivery. Part of that context included knowing the audience being addressed primarily included Israelites who appreciated the importance of Jerusalem, both in the past and in the future. Once that is recognized a better English translation will fall immediately into place.

Let me try and explain how we Hebrews felt about Jerusalem.

As just one example, look at Isaiah 33:20 which reads ‘Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.’

When Jehovah assumes sovereignty and becomes Israel’s judge, lawgiver and king (33:22) Jerusalem is described as a quiet habitation (dwelling), a tabernacle (a divine center of activity) that shall not be taken down (demolished). In contrast we see in 2 Cor 5:1 a house (dwelling) that is also defined as a tabernacle, was about to be taken down, that is, demolished. From this it can be seen that the ‘earthly’ (I prefer elementary) house’ of 2 Cor 5:1 refers to the existing city of Jerusalem and all that was related to it, and ‘the building of God’ is to a quite different Jerusalem, the one described by Isaiah, the Jerusalem in the Kingdom of God.

I, Paul, talk about these two Jerusalems – Gal. 4:25- 26 – Jerusalem in my day (the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children) and the Jerusalem under God’s government, that is, Jerusalem in the Kingdom of God (the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all). In order to appreciate the fact that I was speaking of Jerusalem as the center of Israel’s life when I spoke of ‘our elementary house,’ one needs to know and understand the place that Jerusalem holds in divine revelation, in the divine purposes, and its place in the hope of Israel. The place that Jerusalem filled in the life of an Israelite is revealed in many passages. Psalm 122 is a beautiful example. It starts with ‘I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem.’ And ends with ‘For my brethren and companions’ sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee, because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.’ This beautiful Psalm, which probably was chanted by the people as they went up to Jerusalem to the feasts, sets forth Jerusalem both as a divine center and as a center of life for every Israelite. An Israelite did not need to be a resident of Jerusalem in order to have this strong attachment to it, for this was a bond that was produced in them by the Spirit of God. Indeed, Jerusalem was central in the life of every Israelite.

But fully appreciating Jerusalem as our house or home permits one to approach this evening’s passage on ‘absent from the body is to be present with the Lord’ with a backlog of truth that makes a true interpretation possible.”

Moderator “I’m confused. Certainly Jerusalem is important to Israel - they are in Palestine fighting to keep it now. But, what does this have to do with our verses on death?”

ATD: “Yes, Paul, what he said. What about that? And besides, I never saw the Greek word for Jerusalem in those passages. How can you say house and home should be translated Jerusalem?”

Paul: “Let me take ATD’s comment first, and then I will get to your question Mr. Moderator. It was Jerusalem that I had reference to when I spoke of ‘our elementary house’ and went on to define it by adding ‘this tabernacle.’ I stayed out of the political and governmental strife of my day by speaking after this fashion, but there was not a single believing Jew who knew the Old Testament that did not know at once what I was talking about.”

ATD: “Now let me interject here. The tabernacle as I understood it was that you were referring to the human body. This human body is dying, but our dwelling in heaven (our spirit body) is eternal.”

Paul: “For once, you raise a good point. However, look at verse 5:1. Note carefully that I said: ‘We (plural) are aware that if our (plural) earthly house (singular), this tabernacle (singular) should be demolished, we have a dwelling (singular) out of God, a house (singular).’ Thus it is many people, but only one house. If this passage were a statement concerning the human body it would be consistent – many people, many houses, but it is not. It is many people, one house. This house is Jerusalem and all that revolved around it. Notice in verse 5:4 ‘we who are in this tabernacle,’ again please note that ‘we who’ is plural and ‘this tabernacle’ is singular. It is one center that takes in many people. If I were using a metaphor to indicate ‘the human body,’ it would read, ‘we who are in these tabernacles.’ Any interpretation that is advanced in respect to this portion must be in harmony with these singulars and plurals. Isn’t that right, Mr. ATD?”

ATD: “Ahh, yes that’s correct.”

Paul: “Now before showing the importance of the two Jerusalems to the so-called death verses, let us first reread the KJV of the paragraph 2 Cor 5:1-:5.

5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
5.2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
5.3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
5.4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5.5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

You see all this talk about different houses and a tabernacle being dissolved, and our groaning and being naked, etc.is about as incomprehensible as you can make it in the King James Version. But once you see there are two Jerusalems — an elementary one and one in the kingdom —, we can begin to understand this first paragraph in Chapter 5. Again understanding this first paragraph of chapter 5 is essential to understanding the next paragraph 5:6-10, the one that started all this discussion about being absent from the body.

We won’t elaborate here but we will present a resultant version that makes a lot more sense.

5.1 We are aware that if our elementary house, this tabernacle, (the present Jerusalem) were demolished, we have a dwelling out of God, a house not made with hands, eonian in the heavens. (Jerusalem of the kingdom)
5.2 For in this we are groaning, earnestly desiring to be clothed in our habitation, which is out of heaven:
5.3 If so that being clothed, we shall not be found naked
5.4 For we who are in this tabernacle are groaning, being burdened on which we are not wanting to be stripped, but to be dressed, that this mortal may be swallowed up by life.
5.5 Now He that has made us for this very thing is God, who has also given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

‘This very thing’ was God’s aim and goal in all the previous work He had done in them. He had produced them with the end in view of clothing them in a new habitation, of giving them a new center of life and activity. The earnest of this was the Spirit that had already been given to them. This was the earnest of what God had promised concerning them. It is very important to notice that there is nothing here that refers to the human body. It is the people of God who will be clothed (housed) by their New Jerusalem in the future.”

Moderator: “Well I can see that your two Jerusalems idea makes these verses read more clearly. So are you saying this entire Chapter 5 is not contrasting our human body here on earth with our future destination in heaven but, rather it is contrasting Israel’s Jerusalem here on earth with some future Jerusalem in the kingdom of God?”

Paul: “That is entirely correct. Now finally, I can explain the absent from the body verses.

2 Cor 5:6 begins a new paragraph. The previous paragraph began with verse one of this chapter and ended with verse five. The new paragraph takes in verses six to ten. It begins with a positive statement of truth that has already been stated twice before in a negative construction 2 Cor 4:1 and 4:16 with We faint not, meaning, We are not despondent.’ So as I start with 2 Cor 5:6 – the KJV says “Therefore we are always confident,” which really means “Being then always courageous.”

Both of the major statements in chapter 5 introduce a new paragraph, and each paragraph presents a new thought; nevertheless, both thoughts are related to ministry. The subject does not change. My thoughts do not wander. The paragraph we now have before us has been so badly garbled in translation that one wonders if it is possible to straighten it out. The translator dude did not know what I, Paul, was talking about, so he rewrote the passage to make it sound as if I were talking about what happens at death.”

ATD: “It sounded like a good idea, and it seemed to make sense at the time.”

Paul: “Oy!”

Moderator: “I now feel your pain, Paul. But if this passage does not have anything to do with death, what does it mean?”

Paul: “There are two more critical points to make and then we can finally put this business about death in chapter 5 to rest. The first point is my claim to be God’s ambassador, and the second is the point I brought up at the beginning about the real meanings of the Greek words translated ‘absent’ and ‘present’ in the King James Version.

As to the first point, there was a paradox in my ministry that needed to be explained. I, and all others commissioned of God, claimed to be God’s ambassadors, yet no man is ever an ambassador to his own people. Thus while my claim seemed to be absurd, it was still true and in accord with the facts. Thus, the true meaning of this passage is tied closely to one statement that I make a few sentences later: ‘Now then we are ambassadors for Christ.’ 2 Cor 5:20. This declaration is the key to all that I say in 2 Cor 5:6-9, and it needs to be objectively considered, that is, considered apart from all our feelings and prejudices in the matter. An ambassador, as such, is not a herald, not a preacher, not a teacher. And while he may speak in behalf of his sovereign or his country, he does not seek to make converts of those to whom he has been accredited. The Greek word for ‘ambassador’ (presbuo) is found only here and in Eph 6:20.

As Christ’s ambassador, I had the right to speak and act in His behalf and stead. This is a right which none can honestly claim today. By the word ambassador I declared my position in regard to Christ, and also my position in regard to all to whom I ministered. However, the basic truth that is inherent in this word is that the one who serves as such must leave his own country and his own people and represent his sovereign in a foreign country and before a foreign people. No man appointed by human governments can be an ambassador to his own country or to his own people. This was the paradox of my ministry. My claim to be an ambassador contained a contradiction which made it seem absurd, yet in the special case of ambassador of Christ it was true and in accord with the facts.

My declaration that I am an ambassador of Christ was made to fellow believers in the Lord Jesus. In every way I was one ministering to my own people – whether they were Romans, Jews; they were fellow believers. How then could I claim to be an ambassador of Christ? I recognized this paradox, and I explained in detail how this was true before I declared that I was an ambassador. This explanation is found in the paragraph we are now considering.

Now, for the final point.. I have already stated, there are no Greek words in this portion that mean ‘at home,’ ‘present,’ or ‘absent.’ We find the words endemeo and ekdemeo three times each in this passage. The first of these is rendered ‘at home’ once and ‘present’ twice. The second is rendered ‘absent’ in all three occurrences. These are arbitrary renderings which ignore altogether what these words obviously mean. If I had meant to say ‘present’ I would have used the word pareimi, just as I did in 2 Cor 10:2, 11; 11:9; 13:2,10; and Gal. 4:18,20. I would not have used this rare verb if I had intended to express the idea of being present. Neither would I have used the word ekdemeo if I meant to say ‘absent.’ I would have used the word apeimi, even as I did in 1 Cor 5:3; 2 Cor 10:1; 13:2,10; Phil 1:27 and Col 2:5. In view of this, our first duty is to establish the meaning of the words endemeo and ekdemeo. This will not be difficult. Any Greek word that has as its root the element dem or demo has in it the idea of the people or the populace. This is also true in English as is seen in such words as democracy, demography, and epidemic. This is more evident in Greek words that contain this root. Consider demos in Acts 19:33 where it is rendered people;’ demosion in Acts 16:37 where it is translated ‘openly’ but means in view of all the people; demegoreo in Acts 12:21 where it is translated ‘orations’ but means to speak to the people; parepidemos (pilgrims) in Heb 11:13 which means one among an alien people; apodemeo in Matt 21:33 (went into a far country) which means to leave ones own people and travel in foreign places. Other words can be cited, but this is enough to show that all words that are based upon the root demo have to do with people. In view of this any translator, lexicographer, or expositor who fails to recognize the meaning of these two words shows he is prejudiced against the truth, and more than likely incompetent as well.”

ATD: “Hey!”

Paul: “Hoist by your own petard? There can be no doubt – the word endemeo means to be with or among your own people, and the word ekdemeo means to be away from or separated from one’s own people. These words do not mean ‘at home’ and ‘away from home’ as you try to make out. There is no idea of ‘home’ in these words. One can be at home (where he lives) and not be among his own people, as many who make their homes in foreign countries will testify. And he can be among his own people and not be at home, as many travelers could testify who have sought out a colony of their own people while in foreign lands. The words endemeo and ekdemeo provide an exactness of meaning which we should not destroy by failing to see the basic idea of people in them. If we do so, we blunt the sword of the Spirit. So finally we are ready to provide a correct English version of verses 2 Cor 5:6-9.

5.6 Being then always courageous, and fully aware, that while we are among our own people, in the body, we are away from our own people, in the Lord:
5.7 For we are walking by faith, not by sight.
5.8 Yet we do not lack courage, and we are delighting all the more, to be separate from our own people, out of the body (out of reality) and to be among our own people in relationship to the Lord

And for this reason also we are ambitious that whether we are among our own people or whether away from our own people to be pleasing to him..

The peculiar nature of my ministry made it so that it was easily misunderstood. The Corinthians had not liked the sharp, plain way that I had dealt with them. In 2 Cor 5:6-9, I set forth the divine reasons why it had to be that way. I was acting as an ambassador of Jesus Christ. I was constrained by the love of Christ. Even as I said unto them: ‘For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.’ 2 Cor 2:17.

I am only sorry that I had to appear here tonight to straighten out the translation mess, but if it has helped the audience, I am pleased.”

Moderator: “Well Paul, you certainly have changed the way I now look at this passage. Guess I will now have to vote against using this to talk about death and dying. How about you ATD? Did you learn anything here tonight?”

ATD: “Well I guess the only thing I learned was to be careful what shows you agree to appear on. The Royal Monarch was watching tonight and I am a little afraid to return to England. Are there any translation jobs around here?”

Moderator: “Afraid not, do you know of any Paul?”

Paul: “If I did, I would want someone with better qualifications.”

Moderator: “Well that’s a wrap. Thanks for listening.”

END OF DEBATE:

106 posted on 06/19/2008 8:47:36 AM PDT by Overwatcher

Wow, ok that's a long post but I read it several times. Let me reply to a few things.

Moderator: “Paul, there is a passage of Scripture, actually the section we are talking about tonight, that has become so important, so prominent, that many major church doctrines are built upon it. So, I thought we should take a very close look at this portion, and we’re especially grateful that you could join us tonight to help our understanding of what you said.”

Point of order, Mr. Biased Moderator. Major church doctrines are not built solely on a single passage of Scripture.

Paul: “Wow, that was hard to follow, but you are absolutely correct. From this shoddy piece of translation work, and I do mean shoddy in the very meanest sense, they have taken out the word for ‘AND,’ then inserted the word ‘IS,’ in order to make a false statement appear to be a direct quote from the Bible. Also, look at the Greek. There are no Greek words that mean PRESENT or ABSENT in 2 Cor 5:6-9, even though these English words are found five times in this short section. I used two very technically-specific words in writing this epistle, just so there would be no confusion as to what I meant. Actually, the Holy Spirit chose the two words, and I wrote them down.”
Moderator: “Paul, what are those two words?”
Paul: “Endemeo and ekdemeo. For someone to change my words, while arbitrarily adding and deleting whatever they want amounts to a perversion of Biblical testimony, inserted to give support to a false idea – in this case the ridiculous idea that a man can be separated from and exist apart from the organized substance (soil) that makes him what he is, a human being.”

Au contra ire, Mr. Pseudo Paul. The real Paul said twice concerning being caught up to the Third Heaven that he couldn't tell whether he was in the body or out of the body. For the umpteenth time, if it were actually impossible for a man to exist apart from his body, can you please explain to me how, the real Paul as an honest man, not even to mention an Apostle, could say that he couldn't tell whether he was in the body or out of the body?

Second, Mr. Pseudo Paul, your assertion that the word "and" has been taken out of the text and substituted with "is" is just silly.

5:8 [ Greek Font Size: – / + | Toggle Font ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | Side-by-side | Greek Lexical Parser ] We are confident (5719) , I say, and * * willing (5719) rather to be absent (5658) from the body, and to be present (5658) with the Lord. qarroumen (5719) de kai eudokoumen (5719) mallon ekdhmhsai (5658) ek tou swmatov kai endhmhsai (5658) prov ton kurion.

5:8 [ Greek Font Size: / | ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | | ]
We are confident (5719) , I say, and * * willing (5719) rather to be absent (5658) from the body, and to be present (5658) with the Lord.
qarroumen (5719) de kai eudokoumen (5719) mallon ekdhmhsai (5658) ek tou swmatov kai endhmhsai (5658) prov ton kurion.

Third, Mr. Psuedo Paul, your assertion that there are no Greek words that mean PRESENT or ABSENT in 2 Cor 5:6-9" as if the words specifically exclude such signification is downright misleading.

5:6 "home" (5723)

Strong's Number: 1736

eÍndhmeÑw

Original Word		Word Origin
	eÍndhmeÑw		from a compound of (1722) and (1218)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Endemeo		en-day-meh'-o
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Verb		2:63,149
Definition
	to be among one's own people, dwell in one's own country, stay at home
Translated Words
	KJV (3) - be at home, 1; be present, 1; present, 1; NAS (3) - home, 3;

----------------

5:6 "absent" (5719)
Strong's Number: 1553 eÍkdhmeÑw Original Word Word Origin eÍkdhmeÑw from a compound of (1537) and (1218) Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling Ekdemeo ek-day-meh'-o Parts of Speech TDNT Verb 2:63,149 Definition to go abroad emigrate, depart to be or live abroad Translated Words KJV (3) - be absent, 3; NAS (3) - absent, 3;

------------------------------

5:8 "absent" (5658)

Strong's Number: 1553

eÍkdhmeÑw

Original Word		Word Origin
	eÍkdhmeÑw		from a compound of (1537) and (1218)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Ekdemeo		ek-day-meh'-o
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Verb		2:63,149
Definition
	to go abroad emigrate, depart to be or live abroad
Translated Words
	KJV (3) - be absent, 3; NAS (3) - absent, 3;

5:8 "present" (5658)

Strong's Number: 1736

eÍndhmeÑw

Original Word		Word Origin
	eÍndhmeÑw		from a compound of (1722) and (1218)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Endemeo		en-day-meh'-o
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Verb		2:63,149
Definition
	to be among one's own people, dwell in one's own country, stay at home
Translated Words
	KJV (3) - be at home, 1; be present, 1; present, 1; NAS (3) - home, 3;

The words, even if taken in their corporate sense do not exclude the meaning of "home", "present" or "absent". Try these on for size:

2 Corinthians 5:6

At home in the body (endhmountev en twi swmati).
Rare verb endhmew from endhmov (one among his own people as opposed to ekdhmov, one away from home). Both ekdhmew (more common in the old Greek) and endhmew occur in the papyri with the contrast made by Paul here.
2 Corinthians 5:4

Not for that we would be unclothed (ep' wi ou telomen ekdusastai).
Rather, "For that (ep' wi) we do not wish to put off the clothing, but to put it on" (all' ependusastai). The transposition of the negative ou weakens the sense. Paul does not wish to be a mere disembodied spirit without his spiritual garment.

That what is mortal may be swallowed up of life (ina katapothi to tnhton upo thv zwhv).
"Only what is mortal perishes; the personality, consisting of soul and body, survives," (Plummer). See on 1:22 for "the earnest of the spirit."

2 Corinthians 5:3

Being clothed (endusamenoi).
First aorist middle participle, having put on the garment.

Naked (gumnoi).
That is, disembodied spirits, "like the souls in Sheol, without form, and void of all power of activity" (Plummer).

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3613 oiÎkhth/rion

Original Word Word Origin

oiÎkhth/rion from a presumed derivative of (3611) (equivalent to (3612))

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling

Oiketerion oy-kay-tay'-ree-on

Parts of Speech TDNT

Noun Neuter 5:155,674

Definition

a dwelling place, habitation

of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit

Translated Words

KJV (2) - habitation, 1; house, 1;
NAS (2) - abode, 1; dwelling, 1;

Verse Count

KJV NAS

2 Corinthians 1

Jude 1

2 Corinthians 1

Jude 1

2 Corinthians 5:2

To be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven (to oikhthrion hmwn to ex ouranou ependusastai).: First aorist middle infinitive of late verb ependuw, double compound (ep, en) to put upon oneself. Cf. ependuthv for a fisherman's linen blouse or upper garment (John 21:7). Oikhthrion is old word used here of the spiritual body as the abode of the spirit. It is a mixed metaphor (putting on as garment the dwelling-place).

Further, that this passage has nothing at all to do about death is plainly falsified by the real Paul's statement "that mortality might be swallowed up of life".

There was no reason to deny it. I told them that the glorious treasure I dispensed had been placed in an earthen vessel. Earthen vessels were cheap, common, least valued, used with little care, and bound to break sooner or later. This was the metaphor I used to describe my physical being. I told them why God had seen fit to do it this way - ‘That the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.’ 2 Cor 4:7.”

...Even though the outer man was wasting away, suffering wear and tear, the inward man was being renewed day by day (4:16). These designations of outer and inner man apply only to a believer. He alone has an inner, renewable life.

You need to clean up your possessive, dualistic language, Mr Pseudo Paul. Where are you getting this "inner life" stuff that you are injecting into your equation, "body plus breath of life equals a living soul"?

And how does the real Paul's language "in his body" in verse 10 of the same chapter fit into your equation?

5:10 [ Greek Font Size: / | ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | | ]
For we must (5748) all appear (5683) before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive (5672) the things done in his body, according to that he hath done (5656) , whether it be good or bad.
touv gar pantav hmav fanerwqhnai (5683) dei (5904) emprosqen tou bhmatov tou Xristou, ina komishtai (5672) ekastov ta dia tou swmatov prov a epracen, eite agaqon eite faulon.

The bottom line is nothing in our position that is altered in the least by allowance for both meanings of the word "body" as used in the passage, the corporate sense and the individual sense. However, your position CANNOT allow for what plainly is allowed in the passage, as if the two senses are somehow mutually exclusive, a supposition without any supporting evidence. Further, nothing in the passage even comes close to supporting your view that when the body is decomposed, that there is no more of the man till the resurrection. Your interpretation of this passage in this imaginary dialog simply begs the question by assuming as true from the very outset the very thing you are supposed to be proving.

If we have bodies ‘eternal in the heavens’ to replace the one destroyed by death, then the resurrection of this present body is undesirable.

The resurrection of this present body may be undesireable to you, but Paul plainly taught, as I proved to you earlier in this thread, that life will be given to our mortal bodies, the same body that is sown as a seed will rise, changed, immortal and incorruptible, just as the same body of Jesus that was placed in the tomb was the body that was raised, except immortal and incorruptible.

Cordially,

107 posted on 06/19/2008 12:05:37 PM PDT by Diamond

Thanks for reading it. (You must be a really fast reader). I’ll be back to you later on.

108 posted on 06/19/2008 12:13:18 PM PDT by Overwatcher

You have mentioned the passage in I Corinthians 15 several times, and so I should respond to your question.

I wrote in my previous epistle to these same people (1 Corinthians 15) that, ‘if the dead rise not, then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.’ Why would I make such a statement, if the dead, wholly apart from resurrection, are present with the Lord? Does that make any sense?”

I Corinthians 15
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Paul is making a reductio ad impossibile argument against those Corinthians who thought the resurrection was impossible. He enumerates the absurdities that follow from the supposition that there is no resurrection from the dead. If the supposition is admitted it would destroy the central fact and the principal evidence of Christianity; the resurrection of Christ. If it were generally true that there is no resurrection, then Christ was not raised either. If Christ was not raised then Jesus and the Apostles are liars, deceivers, false witnesses and impostors. Even God himself would be guilty of bearing false witness because he said that he would raise Christ from the dead. The Apostles' preaching would be false, empty, delusional, and so would be the Christian faith. Christians are still in their sins because if Christ did not rise from the dead he was only a man like other men and his death has no atoning value.

As if these monstrous absurdities were not enough, another absurdity that logically follows from the supposition is that those who have died in in the Christian faith and for it have perished. In other words the premise completely precludes any hope of ANY life after death, bodily or not. There is also no future retribution if death is the destruction and extinction of the man.

The bottom line is that any limiting of their hopes for this life only is an absurdity, because Christ is indeed raised from the dead.

I've also notice something very curious about your paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 5:6-8:

5.6 Being then always courageous, and fully aware, that while we are among our own people, in the body, we are away from our own people, in the Lord:
5.7 For we are walking by faith, not by sight.
5.8 Yet we do not lack courage, and we are delighting all the more, to be separate from our own people, out of the body (out of reality) and to be among our own people in relationship to the Lord.

What is the textual basis in 5:6 for your rendering of apo tou kuriou, "in the Lord"? I don't see ANY case where apo is translated "in".

Strong's Number: 575

a)po/

Original Word		Word Origin
	a)po/		a primary particle
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Apo		apo'
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	preposition		None
Definition
	of separation of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ... of separation of a part from the whole where of a whole some part is taken of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed of a state of separation, that is of distance physical, of distance of place temporal, of distance of time of origin of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken of origin of a cause
Translated Words
	KJV (671) - at, 9; by, 9; for, 10; from, 393; in, 6; misc., 31; not tr., 16; of, 129; off, 10; on, 5; out of, 48; since + (3739), 5; NAS (34) - after, 1; against, 4; ago, 2; alike, 1; among, 2; away, 1; because, 9; before, 1; belonged, 1; deserting, 1; distance, 1; hereafter, 1; initiative, 1; left, 1; off, 1; once, 1; since, 3; some, 1; way, 1;

Second, what is the textual basis in 5:8 for your interpretation of ekdhmhsai (5658) ek tou swmatov, as "out of reality"? And what is the textual basis for your rendering of the preposition, (5658) prov "in relationship to"?

In light of the significance of Paul's ambassadorship, and the meaning of the words endemeo and ekdemeo, what does it mean that they would much rather prefer :

to go abroad
emigrate, depart to be or live abroad
apart from (pick one)
the body both of men or animals
a dead body or corpse
the living body
the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies)or
a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body, so in the NT of the church
AND
to be among one's own people, dwell in one's own country, stay at home
to the advantage of at, near, by to, towards, with, with regard to
the Lord.?

I've read your interpretation several times more and I can't make any sense out of it, and I also do not see any textual basis for some of your paraphrasing.

It has also occurred to me that you have not cited a single passage by Paul or any other New Testament writer that explicitly or otherwise states that physical death is the destruction and extinction of the man in his entirety.

I have proved to you that Paul had the same view of angels and spirits and the resurrection as the Pharisees, which included the existence of disembodied human spirits in conscious existence, (you yourself admit this was their view) and yet you have not put forth one example from his writing or any other N.T. writing that states otherwise in support of your position.

Cordially,

109 posted on 06/19/2008 9:46:33 PM PDT by Diamond

You believe Paul’s account of his experiences recorded in 2 Cor 12:1-4 gives positive proof that a man can be separated from his bodily aspect. Your argument based upon this passage is that if it were not possible for a man to be separated from and exist apart from his body, Paul would not have said that he did not know when this experience took place whether he was in the body or out of the body.

At first glance your argument does seem to be irrefutable. And it may be quite sufficient for the one who desires to prove that a man can be separated from and exist apart from his body. However, the fallacy of your argument is apparent to anyone familiar with other statements of Paul concerning these matters. If he had never used the terms “in the body” and “out of the body” before, your argument would have some weight. But he has used these terms before, and in ways that we do not use them today. These provide the clue to their real meaning here.

The Greek words translated “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 are ektos tou somatos. This identical phrase first occurs in 1 Cor 6:18 where it is translated “without the body.”

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor 6:18.

In view of this, if the words “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 mean that Paul could have been separated from and exist apart from his bodily frame, then these words must mean the same in 1 Cor 6:18, since they are identical in the inspired original. This then would require us to believe that every time a man sins he departs from his body to do it, except in the case of fornication, which in doing he remains within his body. Since such an idea is ridiculous, no such meaning as this can be fastened onto Paul’s words in 1 Cor 6:18. And, this being true, no such meaning should be fastened onto his identical words in 2 Cor 12:2-3.

In 1 Cor 6:18 Paul makes certain statement comparing sinful acts in general with that of fornication in particular, declaring that fornication, as no other sin, violates the body. He states that every sin is “without the body” while fornication is “into the body.” All sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body. It is physical first and mental second, and it bears a vicious character all its own. Many have challenged Paul’s statement concerning the exceptional character of fornication, but I do not. His contrast is between the mental and physical nature of certain sins, and he uses the term ektos tou somatos to describe those which are generated by the mind. This helps us to understand the passage you keep bringing up, time and time again.

In 2 Cor 12:1-3 Paul takes up the matter of “visions and revelations of the Lord,” and speaks of one who was caught away to the third heaven, even unto paradise. There can be no doubt here but that he is speaking of himself – you freely have admitted and proclaimed this. He declares that he cannot say whether this was an actual physical experience (in the body) or a mental experience (out of the body); that is, a vision. (Here we go again with the vision thing). He could not say, and he does not say, whether he in person was caught away to the third heaven or whether God brought the third heaven to him in a vision. And since he expressly says it was “a man” who was caught away, no truth is to be gained by inserting the idea of a soul or a spirit or a whatever. However, in order to come to a true conclusion, more facts are needed to see if the above interpretation harmonizes with other revelations in the Word of God. Positive help will be found in the prophecy of Ezekiel.

As this prophecy opens, Ezekiel is located physically as being among the captive Israelites by the river of Chebar in the land of Babylon. He declares that the heavens were opened to him and he saw “visions of God.” Eze. 1:1. The “of” here denotes the genitive of origin, meaning visions from God. He was not caught away to heaven, but the heavens were opened to him. This experience was strictly mental and in no way physical. He would have seen and known just as much if he had been stone blind.

Later in Ezekiel 8:3 we find the record of an actual physical experience in which Ezekiel was personally raised up between earth and heaven. While there he was given visions of what was taking place in Jerusalem. This combined a physical experience with a mental one. Paul would describe the physical experience as being “in the body” and the mental one “without the body.”

In Ezekiel 11:1 we find another actual, physical experience in which he was carried bodily by the Spirit of God from Babylon to Jerusalem. From all this it is evident that some of his experiences were mental and some were physical – some were “in the body” (physical), and some were “without the body” (mental).

When Paul’s experience is considered in the light of Ezekiel’s experiences, it is evident that Paul could have been transferred bodily to the third heaven, or that the third heaven could have been brought to him in a vision. He declares that he does not know how this great experience took place, whether it was a bodily transfer to paradise or whether it was a vision.

In view of these Scriptural facts, there is nothing in the words used by Paul in 2 Cor 12:2-3, to support the idea that a man can be separated from his bodily aspect. That such a thing may be possible is a part of Plato’s fancies, a purely human idea that has no basis in the facts of God’s Word. It seems Plato’s fancies have taken a firm hold on you, sorry to say.

You keep telling me that you have proven to me that I am wrong and that you are right. You keep telling me, so it must be true? I haven’t surrendered yet, nor do I plan on doing so.

110 posted on 06/19/2008 10:50:41 PM PDT by Overwatcher

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor 6:18.

The irony of your attempt to use that verse to refute the Scriptural distinction between body and spirit is apparent. What is the entity that posseses a body, and which sins against it?

The Greek words translated “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 are ektos tou somatos. This identical phrase first occurs in 1 Cor 6:18 where it is translated “without the body.”

True

I suppose if you ignore the rest of the different words around the same prepositional phrase in the two different passages, then you can come with an absurd conclusion.

True.

All sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body. It is physical first and mental second, and it bears a vicious character all its own. Many have challenged Paul’s statement concerning the exceptional character of fornication, but I do not. His contrast is between the mental and physical nature of certain sins, and he uses the term ektos tou somatos to describe those which are generated by the mind. This helps us to understand the passage you keep bringing up, time and time again.

Your exegesis here is very poor. Not to digress too much, but Chapter and Verse, please, for your astounding claim that "all sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body. It is physical first and mental second..."

Matthew 15:
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'

If sexual immorality alone among sins does not begin in the mind, but has its beginning in the body, then how could Jesus say:

Matthew 5:
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Back to 1 Cor 6:18. The meaning is, at minimum, that sexual immorality, unlike other sins against one's neighbor, for example, which terminate upon an object external to one's self, and do not immediately pollute one's own body, (though they do pollute one's spirit) have an immediate effect on one's own body. Ektos means outside, beyond or exterior:

Strong's Number: 1622 eÍkto/v

Original Word Word Origin

eÍkto/v from (1537)

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling

Ektos ek-tos'

Parts of Speech TDNT

Adverb None

Definition

outside, beyond
the outside, exterior
outside of
beyond, besides, except

If I go down to the 7-11 and shoot and kill the store clerk, the immediate effect of that sin, the sudden extinguishing of a human life, is external to me; I do not share in my body the same fate as the person whom I have murdered. However, if I commit sexual immorality the defilement of my body (the temple of the Holy Spirit, v.19) is immediate. In other words, my body is not only the instrument by which this sin is committed, but the object against which it is committed. So the distinction between fornication and other sins is not that it alone of sins, is against the body, but that it is peculiarly a sin against the body. It defiles a body which is designed to be a member of Christ, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is not between "mind" and "body", as you would have it.

The word "mind" does not even appear anywhere in the passage, in the Greek or in the English. There is no textual support for your interpolation of "mind" or "mental" into this passage or the 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 passage, just as there there is no textual support for your supposition that a mental experience is "out of the body", or that "out of the body" is "out of reality".

Not Plato, or his fancies, but Jesus, Luke, Paul, et al.

You keep telling me that you have proven to me that I am wrong and that you are right. You keep telling me, so it must be true? I haven’t surrendered yet, nor do I plan on doing so.

I'm not so insane as to expect that you should or would "surrender" to me. You've written a book on the subject. I would suggest this, though:

Romans 6:13
Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.

Cordially,

111 posted on 06/20/2008 9:53:36 AM PDT by Diamond

There is no irony in my attempt to use 1 Cor 6:18 to refute the “Scriptural distinction between body and spirit.” There is no “entity” that possesses a body. But there is the man who is a body in which the breath of life resides. At death this man’s body returns to dust, and his breath of life returns to God Who gave it. No entity, so no irony.

I do not ignore any verse of Scripture. It is your opinion that my conclusion is absurd. I think it’s a rather logical conclusion.

In verse 14 of chapter 6, “And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power.” From what will He raise us up?

I think my exegesis is good. The chapter and verse are staring you in the face. But, you do not see.

In Mat 15:19 what is the “heart?” The Greeks believed that the heart is the very center of a man’s emotions. You don’t think evil thoughts literally come from the organ which is the heart, do you?

112 posted on 06/20/2008 11:56:50 AM PDT by Overwatcher

There is no “entity” that possesses a body. But there is the man who is a body in which the breath of life resides.

If the man is the body why is the body so often spoken of in Scripture in a possessive sense, and the sense of a tent or a tabernacle, or an article of clothing that is taken off? If the man is merely his corporeal existence, what does the imperative to offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life mean? How can someone be dead while he is living?

I do not ignore any verse of Scripture...

I didn't say that you ignore the verse, I said that you ignored the rest of the different words around the prepositional phrase that was common to both verses. Iow, you ignored the context. There is no textual support for your interpolation of "mind" or "mental" into the verses.

In verse 14 of chapter 6, “And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power.” From what will He raise us up?

Death. What is raised is only that which is mortal. "That what is mortal may be swallowed up of life", and "He will give life to your mortal bodies." It says, as God raised Jesus, so will he raise us. As to what is raised, as with Jesus,

John 2
8 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

You're the one who made the astounding claim that "all sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body", not me. I should be the one asking you if evil thoughts literally come from the organ which is the heart.

You still have yet to provide a single NEW TESTAMENT scripture that explicitly or otherwise states that the man is the body, and that physical death is the destruction and extinction of the man in his entirety.

Cordially,

113 posted on 06/20/2008 12:40:53 PM PDT by Diamond

You wrote:

As if these monstrous absurdities were not enough, another absurdity that logically follows from the supposition is that those who have died in in the Christian faith and for it have perished. In other words the premise completely precludes any hope of ANY life after death, bodily or not. There is also no future retribution if death is the destruction and extinction of the man.

But, death is NOT the destruction and extinction of man. Man’s going into the state of death is with resurrection in view. Otherwise, it would indeed be destruction and extinction.

You wrote:

I’ve also notice something very curious about your paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 5:6-8: ... What is the textual basis in 5:6 for your rendering of apo tou kuriou, “in the Lord”? I don’t see ANY case where apo is translated “in”.

Please accept my sincere apologies. You are absolutely correct here. Apo should have been set forth as “from.” I was hurriedly typing and thought I had adequately proof-read what I had typed. I’m very sorry – it was a serious mistake that I should have caught.

You wrote:

Second, what is the textual basis in 5:8 for your interpretation of ekdhmhsai (5658) ek tou swmatov, as “out of reality”? And what is the textual basis for your rendering of the preposition, (5658) prov “in relationship to”?

Pros means “toward,” and one definition of toward is “in relation to.”

You wrote:

In light of the significance of Paul’s ambassadorship, and the meaning of the words endemeo and ekdemeo, what does it mean that they would much rather prefer :

to go abroad
emigrate, depart to be or live abroad
apart from (pick one)
the body both of men or animals
a dead body or corpse
the living body
the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies)or
a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body, so in the NT of the church
AND
to be among one’s own people, dwell in one’s own country, stay at home
to the advantage of at, near, by to, towards, with, with regard to
the Lord.?

As an example of what I am trying to convey by endemeo and ekdemeo, consider the first visit to Antioch in Pisidia as set forth in Acts 13. Their ministry was “to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16), so on the first sabbath day after their arrival they went into the synagogue and sat down (13-14). Thus, in reality, they were endemeo, that is, among their own people. They were not at home, but they were among their own kind. And they were fully received as such, for after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them saying, “Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” (13:15).

You wrote:

It has also occurred to me that you have not cited a single passage by Paul or any other New Testament writer that explicitly or otherwise states that physical death is the destruction and extinction of the man in his entirety.

That’s because, as I have stated, death is not the destruction and extinction of the man. He enters the state of death with resurrection in view. Otherwise, it would be destruction. But, because of resurrection he will take up where he left off.

You wrote:

Again, I believe that Paul believed in angels and spirits, as do I (which I have confessed). I don’t see anything about disembodied spirits. This is a term that doesn’t make sense. So why would I quote Scripture regarding my supposed disagreement, when in fact I do not disagree, nor have I said that I disagree.

Finally, as a separate topic: how do you do the formatting that you do? I know how to do all kinds of formatting in all kinds of documents, but I can’t get anything to take when posting here. There! I confessed my ignorance of this. Can you please help me out?

114 posted on 06/20/2008 5:07:04 PM PDT by Overwatcher

as a separate topic: how do you do the formatting that you do?

Most browsers have a "View Source" option under "View". When I use Windows, there is a little utility that I downloaded from Microsoft that allows one to highlight a portion of HTML text, right click and choose "View Partial Source". Very handy. When I use a Mac I have just choose View Source and then find the portion that I want to use.

Your mileage may vary, but the Microsoft link is here:
Internet Explorer 5 Web Developer Accessories

What then, is the state of death before the resurrection, and what is the final state of the wicked?

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I've tried, "ceases to exist" and "unconscious", to describe your view of death but you don't like those. You don't like, " the destruction and extinction of man", because of the resurrection. How about "Man has no conscious existence apart from the body after he dies", or "temporary annihilation (before the resurrection) ?

If the body is the man, or the man is the body, how can a man be said to be dead while he is alive?

Again, I believe that Paul believed in angels and spirits, as do I (which I have confessed).I don’t see anything about disembodied spirits. This is a term that doesn’t make sense. So why would I quote Scripture regarding my supposed disagreement, when in fact I do not disagree, nor have I said that I disagree.

When Jesus had risen from the dead his disciples were terrified and supposed that they had seen a spirit. Jesus said, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" What does that mean?

Cordially,

115 posted on 06/20/2008 6:30:22 PM PDT by Diamond

Thanks for the tip - I figured you could help.

The state of the dead before resurrection is as described in Ecc. 9 - the dead don’t do nuthin’ and they don’t know nuthin’ - they are dead. As you didn’t want to put words in my mouth, I will: man has no conscious existence when he dies. I don’t know if the term temporary annihilation is apropos here. If you have been annihilated, that’s it. But if you are in the state of death with resurrection in view, that’s not annihilation; nor destruction; nor extinction.

As far as how a man can be said to be dead while he is alive, haven’t you ever heard that saying by the motivational speakers: “he was dead at thirty, but wasn’t buried until he was eighty (or sixty, or seventy, or whatever). When Jesus was talking about the dead burying the dead, I think he was talking about those who were not worthy of being allowed to live in the coming kingdom. They were dead to the glorious “flow” of the coming “eon.”

You are absolutely right on when you talk about Jesus telling the disciples to handle Him - a spirit indeed does not have flesh and bone. It don’t have no body at all. Kind of lends credence to the position that disembodied spirits makes no sense. (Sorry, it’s late, and I’m tired and I’m old).

116 posted on 06/20/2008 10:03:48 PM PDT by Overwatcher

What is the final state of the wicked?

Cordially,

117 posted on 06/21/2008 7:52:01 AM PDT by Diamond

Concerning the end of the wicked:

In Philippians 3:19 Paul states that the end of certain men, whom he describes as “the enemies of the cross of Christ,” is destruction. But, what does destruction mean?

Apollumi (Strong’s word 622) is found 92 times in the NT where it is translated “perish” 33 times, “destroy” 26, “lose” 22, “be lost” 5, “lost” 4, “be marred” 1, “dies”1. This variety of meanings reveals the indecision of the translators as to the meaning. Yes, words may have more than one meaning, depending on the context, but “destroy” and “perish” represent the strongest possible meaning, and the word “lost” represents its weakest possible usge. Some expositors have determined that the weakest meaning of this word is its true meaning, that it means to be lost, a condition from which men can be saved. Usually these are advocates of some doctrine of universal salvation, restoration or reconciliation.

In 1 Cor 15:18 apollumi is translated “are perished. The subject of this portion of Scripture in both text and context is the resurrection of the dead, and the importance of resurrection is emphasized by Paul’s declaration that if the dead do not rise, “then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” Looks like God’s Word is telling us that apart from resurrection the state of the dead is not one of heavenly bliss, it is one of destruction. Therefore, I think apollumi is the word used by the Spirit of God to describe that state of death when no resurrection is in view.

I think it is logical to conclude therefore that the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word hades are used to indicate the state of death when resurrection is in view, since all who are in the state of death will be made alive (1 Cor 15:22), and apollumi signifies the state of death when no resurrection is in view. This is the state even of those who have “fallen asleep in Christ,” if there is no resurrection. So, 1 Cor 15:18 gives us a clear meaning of the word apollumi, a strong meaning, even though this word can have lesser meanings in other contexts.

Some people insist that apollumi sets forth a condition from which men can be saved, and they point to its usage in Luke 15:3-32, where it is used of a “lost sheep,” a “lost coin” and a “lost boy.” But, all these are figurative or metaphorical uses of this word, as can be seen in Luke 15:24, where the father of the prodigal son is quoted as saying: “For this my son was dead and is alive and again; he was lost and is found.” Furthermore, the sheep which as described as being “lost” (apollumi) was in a condition and situation where it could be found (and it was), that coin was in condition where it could be found (and it was), and that boy was in a condition where all he needed to do was make up his mind and walk out of it (which he did).

Please don’t accuse me of using the “straw man” argument again. I am just laying some groundwork and trying to lead up to an answer to your question about the final state of the wicked.

When we come back to Paul’s declaration in Phil 3:19 that “the end” of certain men “is destruction,” we find the strongest possible use of this term. This describes the finish of these men. It is their end. It is not a parenthetical state – destruction is their lot. This is their final state, their end.

At death, I believe no part of man or the man as a whole enters into any new or unknown condition. Man was in the soil before his creation and at death he returns to the soil; the spirit (breath of life) which was with God before it was given to man, returns to God Who gave it. This is the condition of all men in death, it is the state of death. But since man goes into the state of death with resurrection in view, and this is clearly stated in Acts 24:15 and 1 Cor 15:22, we are able to enlarge our definition of sheol and hades so that each time we come upon these words they mean the state of death with resurrection in view. If the fact of resurrection is in some way erased by God from the prospect of man’s future, i.e., his destiny, then sheol becomes destruction.

Thus it is when God says that the end of some is destruction, He has eliminated all prospect of resurrection from their future. This is also true when God says of those cast into gehenna, “their fire shall not be quenched and their worm shall not die.” There will never be any reversal of the judgment that brought them into the state of destruction.

Since the death of the first man to die (Abel) God has been taking the spirit (life) of every living being back to Himself. The man which was formed out of the dust returns to the dust, and the spirit (breath of life) which made the man a living soul returns to God Who gave it. This is not the end of man, for he has simply gone into the state of death where resurrection is in view. Resurrection does not depend upon redemption, forgiveness, or salvation. Paul believed in a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. If it were not for resurrection, death would be the end of man.

Resurrection is not re-incarnation, the idea that something called the soul reappears in another form or body after death. Resurrection is re-creation in which man is again taken from the soil and is given once more the breath of life so that he again becomes a living soul.

Man has a beginning and he can come to a complete end and be as though he had never been. But this does not happen at death. It takes place after resurrection. This is destruction. It is the end of the wicked.

118 posted on 06/21/2008 10:59:53 PM PDT by Overwatcher

Thank you for your detailed response.

If you will, allow me to clear up two points, followed by another question:

Please don’t accuse me of using the “straw man” argument again.

The straw man argument was ONLY in reference to your category mistake, "immortal spirit", and your misrepresentation that we believe that man "becomes" a spirit being, or an "angel" at death. The Scripture does not teach that and we do not believe that. It does not refer to anything else that you stated.

Resurrection is not reincarnation, the idea that something called the soul reappears in another form or body after death.

We do not believe in reincarnation, either. We believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life of the world to come; not to be confused or conflated with karma, Hinduism, Jainism, esoteric philosophies, Spiritism, gnosticism, and any other pagan religion that you care to think of, including modern ones.

My next question is, what is the final state of the Devil and his angels?

Cordially,

119 posted on 06/22/2008 8:46:38 AM PDT by Diamond

I believe in future punishment, but suspect we probably disagree as to its nature and duration (I’m just guessing).

That being said, one of the most important key words to look at regarding the fate of the Devil is gehenna. This word is found twelve times in the NT, eleven times from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though the KJV translates this word “hell,” Jesus used this popular name of a piece of land which in His time had become a trash dump, a refuse heap, a place for the disposal of useless stuff, to designate another gehenna that will exist in the future, under divine government. That gehenna will be used for the disposal of useless and worthless men. This is the future gehenna described in Rev 19:20 as “the lake of fire burning with sulphur.”

The people who lived in Biblical times never consigned anything to the rubbish heap until it had become utterly useless and worthless. This helps explain why the trash dumps of ancient cities are of questionable value to the archeologist. Nothing was placed there until it was useless.

The Lord Jesus took the name of a rubbish heap south of Jerusalem and used this to warn evil men about a place of future punishment. When He governs this earth there will be a place for disposing and consuming of worthless and useless men. “I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him which after He hath killed hath power to cast into Gehenna, yea, I say unto you, Fear Him.” Luke 12:5. Under God’s government there will be a place for the destruction of worthless men; it is called Gehenna.

In 2 Sam 23:6-7 David declared: “The sons of belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away ... and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place.” To be “utterly burned” can mean nothing but total destruction, and “in the same place” means the place established or designated. We already know its name.

In Rev 19:20 we read of two personages, one called “the beast” and the other called “the false prophet,” whom I believe to be Satanic messengers, and leaders in the revolt against God’s government. Their doom is to be “cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.” One thousand years later, Satan who has been held prisoner for a thousand years is loosed from his imprisonment, and he immediately manifests his deceiving character once again; but, the revolt he causes does not last long (Rev 20:9). All who join his protest are devoured by fire that comes down from God out of heaven, and Satan is cast into the lake of fire and sulphur, the same one where the beast and the false prophet were cast a thousand years before, the place prepared for the Devil and his angels.

In Rev 20:15 we learn that those who are found guilty at the judgment of the great white throne will be cast into the lake of fire, along with “the death” (ho thanatos) and “the state of death” (ho hades). This will be “the second death” for all persons upon whom this punishment falls.

In 1 Sam 2:12 the sons of Eli were said to be the sons of belial. They knew not the Lord, thus they had been declared in God’s Word to be “belial men,” i.e., “worthless men.” This record will witness against them in the day when they are raised from the dead to stand trial at the great white throne. There they will be sentenced by divine decree to die the second time with the added penalty that they shall be cast into gehenna. From this death they will never come forth to be living men again. The future gehenna will be a fire that consumes. It will be God’s incinerator. Three will be cast into it alive, but none will ever come out of it alive.

120 posted on 06/22/2008 10:12:25 AM PDT by Overwatcher

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Original Word		Word Origin
	eÍkto/v		from (1537)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Ektos		ek-tos'
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Adverb		None
Definition
	outside, beyond the outside, exterior outside of beyond, besides, except