Replies

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,

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.

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?