We see that Paul preached the resurrection to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were pagan Greeks and Romans who believed that the soul was immortal. As a matter of fact, we see that Paul was mocked by many Gentiles for preaching resurrection. Why? Because everybody believed in the immortality of the soul! A resurrection was useless. Yet the fact that in the face of this belief, Paul emphasized the necessity of the resurrection for eternal life in such blatant terms shows that this was in contrast to the immortality of the soul, not a condoning of the belief.
To explain away some of the conditional mortality texts that I have presented the last few threads, many will say that when the bible talks about immortality, it is merely speaking about the body; the soul, however, is eternal. Myself and others have repeatedly shown that the Bible makes no distinction, but we see in the NT how important the resurrection was to Paul for eternal life for the Christian. For Paul and the NT Christians, there was no ‘body/soul reunification’. It was the whole man that either lived or died.
William Tyndale, a great English reformer and translator of the Bible into English, believed whole-heartedly in the resurrection and not immortality. In 1530 responding to Sir Thomas More's objection to his belief that "all souls lie and sleep till doomsday" he vigorously replied.
Let’s look at the most compelling chapter in the scriptures about the resurrection and its ties to eternal life. 1 Corinthians 15 should settle the matter quite firmly for those not willing to put their preconceived notions into the scriptures. Let’s look at them.
Paul is saying that if there is no resurrection, then why not live life in debauchery for there is no existence after life!
Those that have fallen asleep in Christ have not perished if they exist in some form in heaven already. One cannot say that because Jesus died and rose, therefore our souls can go to heaven at death', for Paul goes on to say that it is in the resurrection where Christ's example and reality of resurrection takes effect, and not at death.
It is funny how so many take the terms 'fallen asleep' to basically mean that one is 'with Jesus' and not literally asleep in their graves. This verse poses an interesting situation. If 'those who have fallen asleep are perished' and those 'who have fallen asleep' are already with the Lord, then we have a God who might allow the death of the soul in heaven simply because it is dependent on the body. This is completely redundant for the survival of the soul to begin with if it is dependent on the body for life.
You cannot make this verse to mean strictly' the body' or strictly 'the soul' for it makes no sense in either case. Instead, we see that it is the WHOLE man that PERISHES in the grave if there is no resurrection.]
We see how our hope in eternal life is wrapped up in the resurrection and the resurrection of Christ. One precedes the other and without the one, the other would not exist and there is no hope:
If souls went to heaven at death, why would Paul tell them to not "sorrow as those who have no hope" and then continue to tell them about the resurrection? The reason is because the resurrection is our ONLY hope. Without it, there would be no eternal life but eternal death. Without the resurrection, all those Christians would perish and there would be no hope. We see that there is no room for a disembodied soul that survives death in this theology.
As William Tyndale sarcastically remarks concerning this in his response to Thomas More in their discussion over immortality of the soul or resurrection:
So when does this ‘being made alive’, this ‘eternal life’ occur? Is it at death?
This then culminates in vs 51-56 which shows that death is conquered only at the resurrection and immortality is finally given.
To take this verse to mean that Paul is only talking about the body and not the soul is to not only read in an unproven assumption the text doesn’t make, but to also ignore the context and importance of the previous verses. ONLY at the resurrection is death conquered. THEN shall be brought to pass the saying, ‘death is swallowed up in victory’’. If souls survived death, then death is swallowed up in victory at the time of death and not at the resurrection.
If my soul goes to heaven at death, then death is the first enemy to be destroyed and is swallowed up, not at my resurrection but when my essence leaves my body and goes to enjoy heavenly bliss.
Paul is not speaking of two lives and two deaths, but rather one body and one life and one death. Notice his language describing the whole of man - ‘this mortal’. You absolutely cannot get the idea that only the body is being spoken about here. To Paul, like the rest of those in the scriptures, man was a wholistic being, not a dualistic one.
To explain away some of the conditional mortality texts that I have presented the last few threads, many will say that when the bible talks about immortality, it is merely speaking about the body; the soul, however, is eternal. Myself and others have repeatedly shown that the Bible makes no distinction, but we see in the NT how important the resurrection was to Paul for eternal life for the Christian. For Paul and the NT Christians, there was no ‘body/soul reunification’. It was the whole man that either lived or died.
William Tyndale, a great English reformer and translator of the Bible into English, believed whole-heartedly in the resurrection and not immortality. In 1530 responding to Sir Thomas More's objection to his belief that "all souls lie and sleep till doomsday" he vigorously replied.
Let’s look at the most compelling chapter in the scriptures about the resurrection and its ties to eternal life. 1 Corinthians 15 should settle the matter quite firmly for those not willing to put their preconceived notions into the scriptures. Let’s look at them.
Paul is saying that if there is no resurrection, then why not live life in debauchery for there is no existence after life!
Those that have fallen asleep in Christ have not perished if they exist in some form in heaven already. One cannot say that because Jesus died and rose, therefore our souls can go to heaven at death', for Paul goes on to say that it is in the resurrection where Christ's example and reality of resurrection takes effect, and not at death.
It is funny how so many take the terms 'fallen asleep' to basically mean that one is 'with Jesus' and not literally asleep in their graves. This verse poses an interesting situation. If 'those who have fallen asleep are perished' and those 'who have fallen asleep' are already with the Lord, then we have a God who might allow the death of the soul in heaven simply because it is dependent on the body. This is completely redundant for the survival of the soul to begin with if it is dependent on the body for life.
You cannot make this verse to mean strictly' the body' or strictly 'the soul' for it makes no sense in either case. Instead, we see that it is the WHOLE man that PERISHES in the grave if there is no resurrection.]
We see how our hope in eternal life is wrapped up in the resurrection and the resurrection of Christ. One precedes the other and without the one, the other would not exist and there is no hope:
If souls went to heaven at death, why would Paul tell them to not "sorrow as those who have no hope" and then continue to tell them about the resurrection? The reason is because the resurrection is our ONLY hope. Without it, there would be no eternal life but eternal death. Without the resurrection, all those Christians would perish and there would be no hope. We see that there is no room for a disembodied soul that survives death in this theology.
As William Tyndale sarcastically remarks concerning this in his response to Thomas More in their discussion over immortality of the soul or resurrection:
So when does this ‘being made alive’, this ‘eternal life’ occur? Is it at death?
This then culminates in vs 51-56 which shows that death is conquered only at the resurrection and immortality is finally given.
To take this verse to mean that Paul is only talking about the body and not the soul is to not only read in an unproven assumption the text doesn’t make, but to also ignore the context and importance of the previous verses. ONLY at the resurrection is death conquered. THEN shall be brought to pass the saying, ‘death is swallowed up in victory’’. If souls survived death, then death is swallowed up in victory at the time of death and not at the resurrection.
If my soul goes to heaven at death, then death is the first enemy to be destroyed and is swallowed up, not at my resurrection but when my essence leaves my body and goes to enjoy heavenly bliss.
Paul is not speaking of two lives and two deaths, but rather one body and one life and one death. Notice his language describing the whole of man - ‘this mortal’. You absolutely cannot get the idea that only the body is being spoken about here. To Paul, like the rest of those in the scriptures, man was a wholistic being, not a dualistic one.
).