When we die do we go directly to heaven??

[BobRyan]

Sorry Bob, where did "David Lamb post to the effect that when you guys claim that text exists - we should NOT think that you are claiming to actually quoting correctly" ?

David --

Always glad to help out. Here it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lamb

the exact English words, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," are not to be found in the Scriptures. Who said they were? Certainly not DHK. He just used those words in his post. He didn't say they were a direct quote from Scripture,

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...1&postcount=31

In an attempt to clarify what I did mean, may I say that in Post 19, I was simply saying that eternal life begings here, on this earth, and continues in glory. In Post 31, I made 2 points, first, I agreed that the exact English words, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," are not to be found in the Scriptures. Secondly, I pointed out that, in using those words in his post, DHK had not claimed to be quoting from scripture.

I was simply giving TCGreek that same "out" by noting that what he said "Paul said" was not supposed to be a claim that he was actually "quoting from scripture" as you stated.

Sort of a "As Paul said -- followed by a not-quote of Paul"

And then my "be honest for just a sec" post was to point out that it is NOT a coincidence that TCGreek and DHK "just so happen" to "not quote Paul" with EXACTLY the same not-quote. My argument is that the not-quote in question continains wording that is essential to the POV they are promoting - though as you say it is not IN the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Let's read "the text" of Luke 16 and admit to the obvious facts regarding these 4 question,

1. Who ALONE is the rich man praying to?

2. Whose lap is Lazarus in?

3. Who ALONE renders decision on the Rich man's request asing for someone to be resurrected and sent to the living?

4. What is the stated moral of the parable according to Christ?

Luke 16

22 ""Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
23 ""In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 ""And he cried out and said, " Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
25 ""But Abraham said, "Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
26 "And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
27 ""And he said, "Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house
28 for I have five brothersin order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29 ""But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
30 ""But he said, "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
31 ""But he said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'''

Answers normally left as an exercise for the reader -

1. Abraham

2. Abraham

3. Abraham

4. "If they do not listen to Moses then neither will they listen though someone were raised from the dead"

There is just no way to spin this parable around - for these facts are all obvious to the reader.

Burton Coffman

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Verse 24
And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.
Father Abraham ...
Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called "Abraham's bosom." Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said:
It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him? F39

Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16
“As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious.”
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave.
…
This parable is not like Christ's other parables, in which spiritual things are represented by similitudes borrowed from worldly things, as those of the sower and the seed (except that of the sheep and goats), the prodigal son, and indeed all the rest but this. But here the spiritual things themselves are represented in a narrative or description of the different state of good and bad in this world and the other. Yet we need not call it a history of a particular occurrence, but it is matter of fact that is true every day, that poor godly people, whom men neglect and trample upon, die away out of their miseries
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

in Christ,

Bob

 

[David Lamb]

David --

Always glad to help out. Here it is.

I was simply giving TCGreek that same "out" by noting that what he said "Paul said" was not supposed to be a claim that he was actually "quoting from scripture" as you stated.

Sort of a "As Paul said -- followed by a not-quote of Paul"

And then my "be honest for just a sec" post was to point out that it is NOT a coincidence that TCGreek and DHK "just so happen" to "not quote Paul" with EXACTLY the same not-quote. My argument is that the not-quote in question continains wording that is essential to the POV they are promoting - though as you say it is not IN the text.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks, Bob. I am still not sure that I understand you. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) that because some people have expressed what they see as a scriptural truth, without directly quoting scripture, they must automatically be trying to support some pet theory of theirs which is not found in the bible. I would suggest that it is at least possible that the reason two men both used the same phrase might be because "Absent from the body - present with the Lord" is an inscription used on many grave stones. I may be completely wrong in saying that - the truth is that I do not know either man well enough to be able to determine their motives in using the phrase they did.

Also I am afraid you may still be putting words into my mouth (perhaps that should be "fingers", as I am typing, not speaking ) You seem to be saying that I am agreeing with you when you say: "My argument is that the not-quote in question continains wording that is essential to the POV they are promoting - though as you say it is not IN the text." All I agreed with was, as I stated in an earlier post, that the exact English words, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," are not to be found in the Scriptures. I did not say, nor did I mean, that the truth expressed by those words is not scriptural.

Anyway, perhaps I was wrong to make any comment at all, and rather to leave the men who used the words you are objecting to, to argue the point with you if they so wish - I seem to have made the whole thing over-complex by "putting my oar in" (British English expression similar in meaning to "giving my two cents worth" - and neither expression is found in the bible )

 

[DHK]

Now there is a text that IS in the Bible.

The one who says "I am ready to have my bags packed and be on the beach" is not claiming that the act of packing their bags transports them instantly to the beach.

In 2Cor 5 Paul identifies THREE state for mankind.

1. Clothed in this decaying earthly tent (body)
2. Unclothed.
3. Clothd in our immortal heavenly body.

in Christ,

Bob

You never did answer my post #48 back on page 5, did you? Did you think that Smoky did an adequate job for you. He didn't. I will say it again Bob. You lambast the Catholics for believing in Purgatory, a man-made doctrine found nowhere in Scripture. But you believe the same thing. You have invented an SDA purgatory just without the pain and suffering of the Catholic purgatory. There is no difference.
The teaching of the Bible (in more than one place), is: to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. You cannot escape that very basic teaching found in many passages of Scripture, but best summarized so succinctly in 2Cor. 5.

Your summary above is wrong.
We are spirit beings. That is one way that the Lord made us different from the animals. He gave us spirits that will last for eternity. The Bible teahes that animals have a soul (nephesh). So does man. But man has a spirit that the anmals don't. When you get past that teaching things will become more clear to you. The spirit cannot die. It does not sleep. Spirits don't sleep. You will find nowhere in Scripture of a sleeping spirit.

Thus in your above paradigm:
1. We have a spirit that is clothed in an earthly body, and
2. We have a spirit that is clothed in a celestian body.
Paul only speaks of those two points and nothing more. You read into Scripture things that are not there. From that Scripture the Catholics could teach Purgatory just as much as you teach your SDA purgatory.

We wait for the resurrection of our bodies. We wait for our celestial bodies. Paul does not say what happens inbetween. But he does say that he will be absent from the body, and present with the Lord. He does not say that he will be in his resurrected body. He doesn't even imply that. He simply says that he will be present with the Lord. Paul is with the Lord, as is Mary, John, Peter, and the other Apostles. They are all with the Lord. They await the resurrection of their bodies, but they are still with the Lord. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. There is no Purgatory: not a Catholic Purgatory, not an SDA purgatory, and not even a Baptist Purgatory, as some have taught on this board (and are now banned). There is no purgatory Bob. Why do you teach such?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Said
I was simply giving TCGreek that same "out" by noting that what he said "Paul said" was not supposed to be a claim that he was actually "quoting from scripture" as you stated.

Sort of a "As Paul said -- followed by a not-quote of Paul"

And then my "be honest for just a sec" post was to point out that it is NOT a coincidence that TCGreek and DHK "just so happen" to "not quote Paul" with EXACTLY the same not-quote. My argument is that the not-quote in question continains wording that is essential to the POV they are promoting - though as you say it is not IN the text.

in Christ,

Bob

David Lamb said -

Thanks, Bob. I am still not sure that I understand you. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) that because some people have expressed what they see as a scriptural truth, without directly quoting scripture, they must automatically be trying to support some pet theory of theirs which is not found in the bible.

Actually I am saying

#1. I point out that you agree that their statement is not an exact quote

2 and I point out that the difference from what they claim and what the text actually says is exactly the same in each case AND that it is not a case of "just so happen" to not quote the text in exactly the same way.

#3. I point out that the reason they select the same not-quote of Paul is that the wording in that not-quote is KEY to what they (and probably you) believe.

#4. I also happen to believe that their doctrine is wrong as you point out. But in this case the salient point is that their doctrine needs the spin they are giving the text because a correct qoute of the text does not give their argument the force of support that it needs.

I would suggest that it is at least possible that the reason two men both used the same phrase might be because "Absent from the body - present with the Lord" is an inscription used on many grave stones.

#1. While it is a nice thought that they may have been thinking about those two phrases from tomb stones -- and certainly we DO find those two exact phrases in the 2Cor 5 text -- I did not notice them appealing to anything but "Paul SAYS" when they argued "TO BE absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord".

#2. IF they had limited themselves to the statement you gave above I would not have this discussion about the famous non-quote "TO BE absent from the body IS TO BE present" --

I may be completely wrong in saying that - the truth is that I do not know either man well enough to be able to determine their motives

I am not trying to impute motives to them other than the motive of trying to give the best possible argument and support for their doctrinal positions.

I think we all share that motive.

David Lamp
Also I am afraid you may still be putting words into my mouth (perhaps that should be "fingers", as I am typing, not speaking ) You seem to be saying that I am agreeing with you when you say: "My argument is that the not-quote in question continains wording that is essential to the POV they are promoting - though as you say it is not IN the text."

In that quote from me - all I am claiming "for you" is that you agreed that the statement was not an exact quote of scripture.

In fact you seemed to claim that it was wrong of me to assume that it WAS an attempt to quote scripture --

Did I miss something in what you meant??

All I agreed with was, as I stated in an earlier post, that the exact English words, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," are not to be found in the Scriptures.

Fine - then the point I am attributing to you - was valid.

I did not say, nor did I mean, that the truth expressed by those words is not scriptural.

Indeed - in fact I believe you are fully in agreement with them in their doctrinal POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You never did answer my post #48 back on page 5, did you? Did you think that Smoky did an adequate job for you. He didn't. I will say it again Bob.

I gave the answer to Phil 1 that you bring up in post #48 -- in my post #44.

Going to Phil 1 where Paul notes that from the POV of the one dying we "depart" from those around us at death and our next waking moment is that we are "with Christ" just as 1Thess 4 says " and so in this way we shall always be WITH the Lord" -- and yet this is not a good way to avoid the THREE actual states of mankind Paul speaks to in 2Cor 5.

You lambast the Catholics for believing in Purgatory, a man-made doctrine found nowhere in Scripture.

True enough. They teach the same "living-dead" idea that you teach only in their view not only do the living-dead among the wicked suffer torment (as in your same view) but also the living-dead among the Saints suffer torment.

increadibly unbiblical.

But you believe the same thing.

Not possible since I do not hold to a "living-dead" idea where the dead are in any way conscious or marking time or "having experiences" of any kind.

The bible says that at death "their thoughts cease" and that all love, hate, passion, knowledge of God, worship etc for the PERSON - has ceased.

You're barking up the wrong tree again.

You have invented an SDA purgatory just without the pain and suffering of the Catholic purgatory. There is no difference.

Are you really ready to equivocate between purgatory/hell and "no suffering, no torment, no waiting, and completely unnaware of time passing"???

Again - you are forcing your argument into extreme positions.

DHK
The teaching of the Bible (in more than one place), is: to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. You cannot escape that very basic teaching found in many passages of Scripture, but best summarized so succinctly in 2Cor. 5.

2 Cor 5 describes THREE states.

1. Present and clothed IN THIS decaying earthly tent - body
2. Unclothed with any body at all
3. Clothed in our immortal eternal body.

Hint for the objective unbiased reader. The saints do NOT engage in "body sharing" getting an immortal body at death AND ANOTHER immortal body (1Cor 15) at the resurrection.

The Immortal body at the resurrection (seen in 1Cor15) AND the immortal body in 2Cor 5 seen as the THIRD state of man -- are one and THE SAME.

Now for a list of statements not found in scripture but FOUND in the writings of DHK.

#1.We are spirit beings.
#2. He gave us spirits that will last for eternity.
#2. The spirit (of man) cannot die.

DHK then goes on to say

1. We have a spirit that is clothed in an earthly body, and
2. We have a spirit that is clothed in a celestian body.

Indeed. Three states of mankind but only TWO bodies.

The one we have now.

the one we get at the resurrection according to both 1Cor 15 AND 2Cor 5.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[David Lamb]

The bible says that at death "their thoughts cease" and that all love, hate, passion, knowledge of God, worship etc for the PERSON - has ceased.

You're barking up the wrong tree again.

It would help if you provided the bible references for your assertions. I have looked up the phrase "their thoughts cease", and it does not occur in any of the dozen or so English translations of the Bible I have, so I tried looking up "their thoughts", which occurs 10 times in the AV/KJV, but not once in the sense of thoughts ceasing at death. The 4 times the phrase occurs in the Old Testament are all God speaking about the nature of the thoughts of mankind. Those thoughts are: against God for evil (Psalm 56.5), thoughts of iniquity Isaiah 59.7), known to God (Isaiah 66.18) and "producers" of God's righteous judgments (Jeremiah 6.19). Of the 6 times the phrase occurs in the NT, 4 tell us that Jesus knew their thoughts, and the other two are in Romans, one (Romans 1.21) referring to the futility of godless thoughts, the other (Romans 2.15) to thoughts in connection with conscience.

Similarly with your statement that at death all love, hate, passion, knowledge of God, worship etc for the PERSON - has ceased.

 

[BobRyan]

Good point David - I will provide the texts.


Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity

Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity

Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Isaiah 38
18"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19"It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

 

[David Lamb]

Good point David - I will provide the texts.


Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity

Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity

Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Isaiah 38
18"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19"It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

Thanks for giving the references - I'm sure omitting before them was no more than an oversight.

But do the verses you quote teach what you say they do?

In Matthew 22.31-32, Jesus (as you say) insists that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Yet that same God had said, years after their deaths, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Here are those two verses:

31 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."​

You quoted Ps 115:17, to show that praise ceases at death:

the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 but as for us, we will bless the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!​

Note verse 18 says "but .... we will bless the lord from this time forth and forever," not "until we die".

You say Isaiah 38.18-19 teaches that praise cannot be given by those who are dead, and of course that is true, but Jesus came to give sinners life, eternal life that doesn't stop when our bodies die.

It would be too repetetive to deal with every verse you quoted like this. But on the cross, the penitent thief who asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom got something far better than a mere memory. Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23.43) He does not say, "Today you will die, and at some future time you will be with Me in Paradise."

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for giving the references - I'm sure omitting before them was no more than an oversight.

But do the verses you quote teach what you say they do?

I am certainly open to a careful exegetical review of them -- if that is what you are offering.

In Matthew 22.31-32, Jesus (as you say) insists that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Yet that same God had said, years after their deaths, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

Which "proves the resurrection".

And the "proof" is obviously the only "solution" otherwise it is no "proof" at all.

David Lamb

Here are those two verses:

31 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
​

You quoted Ps 115:17, to show that praise ceases at death:

the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 but as for us, we will bless the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
​

Indeed the texts are very clear it is the PERSON that worships the PERSON that ceases to worship. Your finger is not praising God - but YOU are.

Christ affirms that God is NOT the God of the dead just as the Sadducees believe. They AGREE with him on that point.

He then shows them that because God is speaking about being the God of Abraham at a TIME when Abraham is dead AND BECAUSE God is NOT the God of he dead then the only way for that statement to STILL be true after Abraham's death is that there HAS to be a future RESURRECTION the very thing the Sadducees deny.

Thus Christ "puts them to silence" for by their own accepted doctrines there is NTHER possible solution but the RESURRECTION to solve the Matt 22 problem.

Ps 115 simply show in graphic detail what the Sadducees see as the condition of death defined in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You say Isaiah 38.18-19 teaches that praise cannot be given by those who are dead, and of course that is true, but Jesus came to give sinners life, eternal life that doesn't stop when our bodies die.

If Is 38 says "the dead do not praise God which is why as His saints - as His people we never die" then please show it with an exegetically sound review of Isaiah 38.

Or show from Heb 11 that the OT saints were not believers - were not born-again people of God.

But on the cross, the penitent thief who asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom got something far better

Jesus said to him - "Assuredly I say to you today you WILL be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23.43)

In Rev we are told that Paradise is where the throne of God is... in John 20 that same writer tells us that Jesus did NOT go to be with the Father at death.

The point is clear - a promise of the same future resurrection as that we see in 1Cor 15 without which "we are all of -- all men most to be pitied".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

If I say "to be in my bed at midnight is to hear the alarm clock ringing at 8 AM", I can legitimately be seen to be expressing the view that one second my head is on the pillow and the next, from my perspecitve, I am hearing the alarm clock.

The argument makes no sense in the context in which it is given. Paul was explaining to the believers at Corinth his desire, and his choices. One choice was to remain with them, and the other (his personal desire) was to be with the Lord. There was no inbetween position. It was one or the other. If you could go back and time and ask any one of those Corinthians if Paul was teaching "soul sleep" they would look at you as if you were from planet mars, astonished that you would even think such a thing! Paul was describing only two choices to them. He would like to remain with them, but at the same time his real inward desire was to be with the Lord. There is no inbetween situation even thought of or considered in the text. No Corinthian would have even imagined such a thing.

The fact that Paul is explaining his choices and his desires does not discriminate between the possibility that Paul was speaking "technically" or in a "third-party objective" sense (when he said it is better to be absent from the body and present with the Lord) or phenomenologically. In fact, if anything, the line of argument you seem to be pursuing tends to support the phenomenological view - that for Paul as a subject of experience, with desires and wishes being indeed subjective and experiential in nature, the transition to the presence of God will seem instantaneous even if thousands of years of sleep on his part have intervened.

On a phenomenological construal, Paul will have this desire that you refer indeed met instantly - for him as a subject of experience, he will indeed go directly to the presence of God even if this is not factually the case.

And, of course, the phenomenological view does not require the insertion of an "in between" state - it is in the very nature of the phenomenological claim that there is indeed no such state, even if there is, of course, such an in-between state in the "third-party perspective. But, again, I am raising the possibility that Paul is not even adopting such an "objective" perspective. The possibility that he is speaking subjectively remains.

 

[TCGreek]

Now there is a text that IS in the Bible.

The one who says "I am ready to have my bags packed and be on the beach" is not claiming that the act of packing their bags transports them instantly to the beach.

In 2Cor 5 Paul identifies THREE state for mankind.

1. Clothed in this decaying earthly tent (body)
2. Unclothed.
3. Clothd in our immortal heavenly body.

in Christ,

Bob

1. And what is your point?

2. But I hear Paul saying, "Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord... We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6, 8)

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see Paul saying,

a. To be home in the body is to be alive physically.

b. And to be away from the body is to be with the Lord, therefore meaning that a separation from the home of the body has taken place, which is death, the gateway to eternity with the Lord.

 

[DHK]

On a phenomenological construal, Paul will have this desire that you refer indeed met instantly - for him as a subject of experience, he will indeed go directly to the presence of God even if this is not factually the case.

And, of course, the phenomenological view does not require the insertion of an "in between" state - it is in the very nature of the phenomenological claim that there is indeed no such state, even if there is, of course, such an in-between state in the "third-party perspective. But, again, I am raising the possibility that Paul is not even adopting such an "objective" perspective. The possibility that he is speaking subjectively remains.

Excuse me, but the text is taken from Corinthians, a port city of Greece which catered to the pagans, the barbarians, those who had little Bible knowledge, and many passing vagrants. "To be a Corinthian" was a common phrase a that time. It was a direct reference to the immoral character of the person being referred to as well as the illiteracy or lack of education.
To those that were educated, they were Greeks. They sought after the wisdom that came from Greek philosophy.

Acts 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

Acts 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

But when Paul came to Corinth:
1 Corinthians 1:22-23 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
--Paul never prepared an SDA purgatory; an intermediate state of soul sleep. The Bible does not teach this. Paul came and spoke to these Greeks plainly, simply, but with the power and demonstration of the Spirit of God. He did not speak technically and phenomenologically. His speech was plain, easy for them to understand.

His preaching was not obfuscated by highly technical words, clouded about with existential terminology endowed with the metaphysical jargon of the mystical thinking of the vain philosophers that they were accustomed to hearing that most of them could not comprehend nor of which subject matter could even begin fathoming the substance thereof.

 

[Andre]

--Paul never prepared an SDA purgatory; an intermediate state of soul sleep. The Bible does not teach this. Paul came and spoke to these Greeks plainly, simply, but with the power and demonstration of the Spirit of God. He did not speak technically and phenomenologically. His speech was plain, easy for them to understand.

His preaching was not obfuscated by highly technical words, clouded about with existential terminology endowed with the metaphysical jargon of the mystical thinking of the vain philosophers that they were accustomed to hearing that most of them could not comprehend nor of which subject matter could even begin fathoming the substance thereof.

This post does not redress the possibility that Paul was speaking phenomenologically when he made his statement about being absent from the body and present with the Lord. If it did, the post would need to explain exactly why it is we can be confident that Paul was speaking in a third-person "this is the objective state of affairs in the world" sense and not speaking from his perspective as a subject of experience.

This is not a difficult matter. Can I legitimately say something like: "I would rather place my head on the pillow at midnight and be present with the crowing rooster and the rising sun streaming in my window"? Indeed I can. It is a description of the world from my perspective. From the perspective of a third party, such as God, or my neighbour who works the night shift, I have been in an unconscious state of sleep for 8 hours. But, this is not what my experience is. In my experience, I have transitioned instantly from a state of placing my head on the pillow to awakening to a new day.

I suggest that the phenomonological reading of Paul's statement remains intact as a possible reading.

 

[DHK]

This is not a difficult matter. Can I legitimately say something like: "I would rather place my head on the pillow at midnight and be present with the crowing rooster and the rising sun streaming in my window"? Indeed I can. It is a description of the world from my perspective. From the perspective of a third party, such as God, or my neighbour who works the night shift, I have been in an unconscious state of sleep for 8 hours. But, this is not what my experience is. In my experience, I have transitioned instantly from a state of placing my head on the pillow to awakening to a new day.

I suggest that the phenomonological reading of Paul's statement remains intact as a possible reading.

Why are you so confused? Why are you trying to read into Scripture something that is not there. I suggest you go to any non-SDA commentary and read what they have to say on these verese. Not one of them will agree with your obsure interpretation. For example:

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

We are confident, I say, and willing rather,.... We are cheerful in our present state, being assured of future happiness; though we choose rather

to be absent from the body; that is, to die, to depart out of this world. The interval between death, and the resurrection, is a state of absence from the body, during which time the soul is disembodied, and exists in a separate state; not in a state of inactivity and sleep, for that would not be desirable, but of happiness and glory, enjoying the presence of God, and praising of him, believing and waiting for the resurrection of the body, when both will be united together again; and after that there will be no more absence, neither from the body, nor from the Lord:

and to be present with the Lord. This was promised to Christ in the everlasting covenant, that all his spiritual seed and offspring should be with him. This he expected; it was the joy of this which was set before him, that carried him through his sufferings and death with so much cheerfulness; this is the sum of his prayers and intercession, and what all his preparations in heaven are on the account of. It is this which supports and comforts the saints under all their sorrows here, and which makes them meet death with pleasure, which otherwise is formidable and disagreeable to nature; and even desirous of parting with life, to be with Christ, which is far better.
--Gill

 

[Andre]

I am not confused.

You are begging the very question at issue by assuming that when Paul makes it clear that absence from the body immediately results in presence with the Lord, he is speaking in a third party "objective" way. If you can establish that this is the case, then your position is established.

However, it is clear that other interpretations are possible - one of which is that Paul is speaking in the same sense I would if I were to say "To put my head on the pillow in a state of utter exhaustion is followed immediately by hearing the rooster crow and feeling the morning sun on my face". This describes the world from my unique perspective - a perspective where the fact that 8 hours of intervening sleep have factually elapsed is simply not part of the content of my experience.

This is not an "obscure" interpretation. It is an entirely legitimate one that respects the very common way in which people describe their world - namely subjectively.

There is third party objective truth about the world that we all agree to (e.g. the earth rotates every 24 hours) and there is private subjective truth (e.g. I taste orange juice). No one except me has access to that subjective experience as it is for me - such is the very nature of the world. One cannot simply assume that Paul is always speaking in the third party objective way - he might be speaking about the content of his experience in relation to what happens when he dies.

I have yet to hear a counter-argument that disqualifies the phenomenological take on this famous statement by Paul. And please note that my use of underline and bolding is intended for emphasis - not to "yell". I am happy to continue defending what I think is a very robust counter-argument to the view that Paul's statement implies a factually immediate transition to heaven is intended.

And the fact that no commentary may agree with my view is not at issue. To use this fact, if it is indeed true, in critiquing my position is to commit the oft-repeated "appeal to authority" error in argumentation - the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.

 

[TCGreek]

1. Where do we end with these phenomenological approaches? Is it because a plain reading of the text goes against your position and therefore must be reread?

2. Besides, Paul was not speaking only of himself, but about his companions and those to whom he was writing. Notice the use of we time and time again.

3. He took this type of reasoning into verse 10, should we then assume that Paul was using the phenomenological approach about the JSOC?

4. As DHK has stated, You are read too much into the text.

 

[Andre]

1. Where do we end with these phenomenological approaches? Is it because a plain reading of the text goes against your position and therefore must be reread?

It is not a question of re-reading. And you, of course, are subject to the very same objection - namely that you insist on a "third party objective" reading because it suits your position. Unless and until the phenomenological reading is ruled out by an actual argument, it stands as a possibilty. And I have not even begun to invoke texts like 1 Cor 15:18

"Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished"

I think it is clear Paul believes the redeemed are sleeping in their graves.

If such a manner of subjective speaking were rare, you might have a point. But it is not. Consider Paul's own words from Romans 9:

"I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart"

This is subjective language - "what it is like to be in such and such a state" language. The content of Paul's anguish is simply not accessible to us. He can tell us he feels anguish, but a person who has never experienced anguish, if such a fortunate person exists, cannot gain access to what Paul is really experiencing.

It is entirely legitimate to suggest that Paul could be anticipating his personal experience when he dies - what it will be like for him to undergo that experience. And like the person who falls into a deep sleep at midnight and awakes at 8 AM- there is no subjective content for that person that maps to the "factual" 8 hours that have elapsed.

 

[TCGreek]

It is not a question of re-reading. And you, of course, are subject to the very same objection - namely that you insist on a "third party objective" reading because it suits your position. Unless and until the phenomenological reading is ruled out by an actual argument, it stands as a possibilty. And I have not even begun to invoke texts like 1 Cor 15:18

"Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished"

1. Paul is using the ad hominem argument and following it to its logical conclusion here. But it is clearly not what he believes. You should no better than that. Look at v.12, "How do some among you you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

I think it is clear Paul believes the redeemed are sleeping in their graves.

2. Paul is using the ad hominem argument and therefore your point has missed the mark.

If such a manner of subjective speaking were rare, you might have a point. But it is not. Consider Paul's own words from Romans 9:

"I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart"

This is subjective language - "what it is like to be in such and such a state" language. The content of Paul's anguish is simply not accessible to us. He can tell us he feels anguish, but a person who has never experienced anguish, if such a fortunate person exists, cannot gain access to what Paul is really experiencing.

3. There's a difference. Here Paul is using I, but in 2 Cor 5, he is using we.

It is entirely legitimate to suggest that Paul could be anticipating his personal experience when he dies - what it will be like for him to undergo that experience. And like the person who falls into a deep sleep at midnight and awakes at 8 AM- there is no subjective content for that person that maps to the "factual" 8 hours that have elapsed.

4. You are working to hard to prove your point. I simple reading of the text will prove otherwise.

5. And you have made no attempts to deal with my argument about the JSOC in v.10 of 2 Cor.5.