Did Jesus go to hell between his death and resurrection?

[Butch5]

Well if you studied languages and how we derive meaning from words, you would know that meaning comes first and foremost from context. Etymology, studying where the word comes from and its roots is not the primary method of determining meaning.

The word is derived from "en" or translated "in," and "demos" being translated as a public assembly. However, the term conveyed the same thoughts of home that we now use the word to refer to.

Here is an example from Greek Literature at the time, and it's translation.

ἡμεῖς γὰρ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἤλθομεν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους ἔχοντες τριήρεις τὰς μὲν ἐν θαλάττῃ τὰς δʼ ἐν τοῖς νεωρίοις οὐκ ἐλάττους τριακοσίων, ὑπαρχόντων δὲ πολλῶν χρημάτων ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ προσόδου οὔσης κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπό τε τῶν ἐνδήμων καὶ τῆς ὑπερορίας ουʼ μεῖον χιλίων ταλάντων· ἄρχοντες δὲ τῶν νήσων ἁπασῶν καὶ ἔν τε τῇ Ἀσίᾳ πολλὰς ἔχοντες πόλεις καὶ ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ ἄλλας τε πολλὰς καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ Βυζάντιον, ὅπου νῦν ἐσμεν, ἔχοντες κατεπολεμήθημεν οὕτως ὡς πάντες ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε.

Xenophon. (1904). Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 3. Medford, MA: Oxford, Clarendon Press.

We Athenians, remember, entered upon our war against the Lacedaemonians and their allies with no fewer than three hundred triremes, some afloat and others in the dockyards, with an abundance of treasure already at hand in our city, and with a yearly revenue, accruing at home or coming in from our foreign possessions, of not less than a thousand talents; we ruled over all the islands, we possessed many cities in Asia, in Europe we possessed among many others this very city of Byzantium also, where we now are,—and we were vanquished, in the way that all of you remember.

Xenophon. (1922). Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. (C. L. Brownson, Tran.). Medford, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

In this usage, it is quite clear that it is simply applicable to the place of origin, the place where they come from, home. This simply is the word the Greeks used for home, the fact that its etymology denotes being in a community does not lend to it's meaning in every usage.

People who usually have a weak exegetical argument appeal to etymology to try and draw out a particular meaning to the word, without dealing with how the word was actually understood and used in the Greek culture.[/quoe]

Thanks for proving my point. In your example “Home” is not the body it among one’s people which is exactly what I said.

 

[Butch5]

Doulos Iesou
Well if you studied languages and how we derive meaning from words, you would know that meaning comes first and foremost from context. Etymology, studying where the word comes from and its roots is not the primary method of determining meaning.

The word is derived from "en" or translated "in," and "demos" being translated as a public assembly. However, the term conveyed the same thoughts of home that we now use the word to refer to.

Here is an example from Greek Literature at the time, and it's translation.

ἡμεῖς γὰρ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἤλθομεν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους ἔχοντες τριήρεις τὰς μὲν ἐν θαλάττῃ τὰς δʼ ἐν τοῖς νεωρίοις οὐκ ἐλάττους τριακοσίων, ὑπαρχόντων δὲ πολλῶν χρημάτων ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ προσόδου οὔσης κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπό τε τῶν ἐνδήμων καὶ τῆς ὑπερορίας ουʼ μεῖον χιλίων ταλάντων· ἄρχοντες δὲ τῶν νήσων ἁπασῶν καὶ ἔν τε τῇ Ἀσίᾳ πολλὰς ἔχοντες πόλεις καὶ ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ ἄλλας τε πολλὰς καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ Βυζάντιον, ὅπου νῦν ἐσμεν, ἔχοντες κατεπολεμήθημεν οὕτως ὡς πάντες ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε.

Xenophon. (1904). Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 3. Medford, MA: Oxford, Clarendon Press.

We Athenians, remember, entered upon our war against the Lacedaemonians and their allies with no fewer than three hundred triremes, some afloat and others in the dockyards, with an abundance of treasure already at hand in our city, and with a yearly revenue, accruing at home or coming in from our foreign possessions, of not less than a thousand talents; we ruled over all the islands, we possessed many cities in Asia, in Europe we possessed among many others this very city of Byzantium also, where we now are,—and we were vanquished, in the way that all of you remember.

Xenophon. (1922). Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. (C. L. Brownson, Tran.). Medford, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

In this usage, it is quite clear that it is simply applicable to the place of origin, the place where they come from, home. This simply is the word the Greeks used for home, the fact that its etymology denotes being in a community does not lend to it's meaning in every usage.

People who usually have a weak exegetical argument appeal to etymology to try and draw out a particular meaning to the word, without dealing with how the word was actually understood and used in the Greek culture.

Thanks for proving my point. In your example “Home” is not the body it among one’s people which is exactly what I said.

 

[Butch5]

So it's not your opinion, that its your opinion?

Most theology is derived from texts like these, as systematic theology is only a practice that arose after the writings of Scripture. Man went into the Word of God to attempt to derive doctrine about man and God from within the text, even when that sometimes isn't the intended meaning of the passage, but indeed a logical conclusion of it.

Who are the "righteous" as referred to in Scripture? Old Testament and New, you will find that it is always referring to men. The Jews to whom this Epistle was written would have recognized that.

You often use this word "ghost" as if to paint the doctrine in a less favorable light. Ghosts are often portrayed as ethereal beings that walk among us. I wouldn't be so confident as to say what nature these "spirits" have, but that it is non-physical as the word in the Greek denotes, and that it is the spirits of the righteous. Which the Genitive case demonstrates that the spirits are of the righteous people.

Here you demonstrate that you haven't really studied the Greek involved here. Temporal information is fronted in the Greek, in order to establish the specific time frame for events that happen in the specific clause. Namely, that today (that same day) he would be with them in paradise.

This single fact is enough to demolish your position, and is the most convincing piece of evidence in my mind. Discourse analysis of the Greek is important if you want to truly understand how the grammar works.

I will not answer that fallacious question.

He didn't, in fact it seems he is demonstrating that life continues after death.

I would probably agree a whole lot with your thoughts on the Old Testament. The only problem is that this is prior to Jesus and the gift of eternal life. I like you emphasize the importance of the resurrection and that this is the hope of the gospel. However, it seems that there is an existence where people peacefully enjoy the presence of Jesus in some way after they are dead and prior to the Resurrection. This isn't an extremely important doctrine, nor do I find it one of the most Scripturally solid doctrines. I do believe that there are certain texts in the New Testament that exclude the idea of a person being simply dead until the Resurrection.

It’s interesting that you won’t address certain issues. Let’s make this simple. Can you show me “Anywhere” that teaches that man has a disembodied consciousness that lives on after death. I’m not talking about inferences anyone can infer whatever they want from Scripture. You won’t find any. Thus all you or anyone can do is speculate. Every passage that you can present to supposedly show this consciousness can easily be understood another way thus not proving the argument for a disembodied consciousness.


Please, show me where Scripture teaches it.

 

[Butch5]

14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
KJV 2 Corinthians 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.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
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 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
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.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2Co 4:14-5:10 KJV)

In verses three and four Paul said we desire to be clothed with our house from Heaven so that we shall not be found naked. Naked is a without a body. Paul doesn’t want to be without a body. He says in this tabernacle we groan. What is he groaning for? Is he groaning to be without a body? NO, he says the exact opposite, ‘not that we would be unclothed but overclothed.

Are you telling that in verse 8 Paul is saying the exact opposite of what he said in verses 3and 4?

He says the very opposite in this passage of what Christians typically claim. Unless one wants to argue that Paul is contradicting himself there is no way that his statement in verse 8 is talking about being a disembodied consciousness. That was what the Greeks taught and Paul is arguing against it.

 

[agua.]

What does "in the flesh" mean to you?

It means doing what the flesh ( evil desire ) wants rather than what the Spirit ( Godly desire ) wants.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

 

[Chopper]

Well if you studied languages and how we derive meaning from words, you would know that meaning comes first and foremost from context. Etymology, studying where the word comes from and its roots is not the primary method of determining meaning.

The word is derived from "en" or translated "in," and "demos" being translated as a public assembly. However, the term conveyed the same thoughts of home that we now use the word to refer to.

Here is an example from Greek Literature at the time, and it's translation.

ἡμεῖς γὰρ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἤλθομεν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους ἔχοντες τριήρεις τὰς μὲν ἐν θαλάττῃ τὰς δʼ ἐν τοῖς νεωρίοις οὐκ ἐλάττους τριακοσίων, ὑπαρχόντων δὲ πολλῶν χρημάτων ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ προσόδου οὔσης κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπό τε τῶν ἐνδήμων καὶ τῆς ὑπερορίας ουʼ μεῖον χιλίων ταλάντων· ἄρχοντες δὲ τῶν νήσων ἁπασῶν καὶ ἔν τε τῇ Ἀσίᾳ πολλὰς ἔχοντες πόλεις καὶ ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ ἄλλας τε πολλὰς καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ Βυζάντιον, ὅπου νῦν ἐσμεν, ἔχοντες κατεπολεμήθημεν οὕτως ὡς πάντες ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε.

Xenophon. (1904). Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 3. Medford, MA: Oxford, Clarendon Press.

We Athenians, remember, entered upon our war against the Lacedaemonians and their allies with no fewer than three hundred triremes, some afloat and others in the dockyards, with an abundance of treasure already at hand in our city, and with a yearly revenue, accruing at home or coming in from our foreign possessions, of not less than a thousand talents; we ruled over all the islands, we possessed many cities in Asia, in Europe we possessed among many others this very city of Byzantium also, where we now are,—and we were vanquished, in the way that all of you remember.

Xenophon. (1922). Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. (C. L. Brownson, Tran.). Medford, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

In this usage, it is quite clear that it is simply applicable to the place of origin, the place where they come from, home. This simply is the word the Greeks used for home, the fact that its etymology denotes being in a community does not lend to it's meaning in every usage.

People who usually have a weak exegetical argument appeal to etymology to try and draw out a particular meaning to the word, without dealing with how the word was actually understood and used in the Greek culture.


So it's not your opinion, that its your opinion?


Most theology is derived from texts like these, as systematic theology is only a practice that arose after the writings of Scripture. Man went into the Word of God to attempt to derive doctrine about man and God from within the text, even when that sometimes isn't the intended meaning of the passage, but indeed a logical conclusion of it.


Who are the "righteous" as referred to in Scripture? Old Testament and New, you will find that it is always referring to men. The Jews to whom this Epistle was written would have recognized that.


You often use this word "ghost" as if to paint the doctrine in a less favorable light. Ghosts are often portrayed as ethereal beings that walk among us. I wouldn't be so confident as to say what nature these "spirits" have, but that it is non-physical as the word in the Greek denotes, and that it is the spirits of the righteous. Which the Genitive case demonstrates that the spirits are of the righteous people.


Here you demonstrate that you haven't really studied the Greek involved here. Temporal information is fronted in the Greek, in order to establish the specific time frame for events that happen in the specific clause. Namely, that today (that same day) he would be with them in paradise.

This single fact is enough to demolish your position, and is the most convincing piece of evidence in my mind. Discourse analysis of the Greek is important if you want to truly understand how the grammar works.


I will not answer that fallacious question.


He didn't, in fact it seems he is demonstrating that life continues after death.


I would probably agree a whole lot with your thoughts on the Old Testament. The only problem is that this is prior to Jesus and the gift of eternal life. I like you emphasize the importance of the resurrection and that this is the hope of the gospel. However, it seems that there is an existence where people peacefully enjoy the presence of Jesus in some way after they are dead and prior to the Resurrection. This isn't an extremely important doctrine, nor do I find it one of the most Scripturally solid doctrines. I do believe that there are certain texts in the New Testament that exclude the idea of a person being simply dead until the Resurrection.

 

[gr8grace3]

14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
KJV 2 Corinthians 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.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
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 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
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.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2Co 4:14-5:10 KJV)

In verses three and four Paul said we desire to be clothed with our house from Heaven so that we shall not be found naked. Naked is a without a body. Paul doesn’t want to be without a body. He says in this tabernacle we groan. What is he groaning for? Is he groaning to be without a body? NO, he says the exact opposite, ‘not that we would be unclothed but overclothed.

Are you telling that in verse 8 Paul is saying the exact opposite of what he said in verses 3and 4?

He says the very opposite in this passage of what Christians typically claim. Unless one wants to argue that Paul is contradicting himself there is no way that his statement in verse 8 is talking about being a disembodied consciousness. That was what the Greeks taught and Paul is arguing against it.

When it comes to "disembodied consciousness" I agree with you Butch. And it may very well be what Paul was arguing about in 2 Cor 5:1-3. God intended us to have a body for His Spirit and I think that is what Paul is saying in these verses. And Indirectly in scriptures we can draw the conclusion that God provides us a "interim body" after we die and before the resurrection.

With parsing from the original language:
*26th ed. Nestles, Allen Text, American Bible Society; New York
**Gramcord Institute, 2218 NE Brookview Dr,; Vancouver WA 98686.....this is what they come up with:

For we know that if our earthly tent-dwelling [i.e., our physical body] be struck, we have an abode [that comes] from God, a dwelling made without human agency, eternal in the heavens. For indeed we do groan in this one, desiring to put on our habitation which comes from heaven. And [even] if we do put off this present one, at any rate, we [i.e., our spirits] will not be found naked [i.e., "body-less"].
Bob Luginbill comments on this:
What Paul is saying - namely that after death we will not be naked (i.e., without a body), in spite of the fact that the resurrection has not yet occurred. The reason for this is that, creatures of both a material and immaterial nature that we are, God will never leave us in any other way than He always meant us to be, possessing both a body and a spirit (in the case of departed believers, the body is at this present time an "interim" body which, while superior to our present "home", is not to be compared with the marvelous "resurrection body" which will be ours on that future day of Christ's return).

We see this Interim body in scriptures Prior to resurrection bodies:

Revelation 6:11 (NIV)
11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.


After this I looked and, behold, [there was] a huge multitude which no one was able to number from every nation and tribe and people and tongue standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes and with palm branches in their hands. And they were shouting in a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God, the One who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!" Rev 7:9-10

 

[Butch5]

When it comes to "disembodied consciousness" I agree with you Butch. And it may very well be what Paul was arguing about in 2 Cor 5:1-3. God intended us to have a body for His Spirit and I think that is what Paul is saying in these verses. And Indirectly in scriptures we can draw the conclusion that God provides us a "interim body" after we die and before the resurrection.

With parsing from the original language:
*26th ed. Nestles, Allen Text, American Bible Society; New York
**Gramcord Institute, 2218 NE Brookview Dr,; Vancouver WA 98686.....this is what they come up with:

For we know that if our earthly tent-dwelling [i.e., our physical body] be struck, we have an abode [that comes] from God, a dwelling made without human agency, eternal in the heavens. For indeed we do groan in this one, desiring to put on our habitation which comes from heaven. And [even] if we do put off this present one, at any rate, we [i.e., our spirits] will not be found naked [i.e., "body-less"].
Bob Luginbill comments on this:
What Paul is saying - namely that after death we will not be naked (i.e., without a body), in spite of the fact that the resurrection has not yet occurred. The reason for this is that, creatures of both a material and immaterial nature that we are, God will never leave us in any other way than He always meant us to be, possessing both a body and a spirit (in the case of departed believers, the body is at this present time an "interim" body which, while superior to our present "home", is not to be compared with the marvelous "resurrection body" which will be ours on that future day of Christ's return).

We see this Interim body in scriptures Prior to resurrection bodies:

Revelation 6:11 (NIV)
11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.


After this I looked and, behold, [there was] a huge multitude which no one was able to number from every nation and tribe and people and tongue standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes and with palm branches in their hands. And they were shouting in a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God, the One who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!" Rev 7:9-10

Hi gr8grace,

There are several problems with the "interim" body theory. Paul said,

NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (2Co 5:1 NKJ)
Paul only speaks of two bodies this one and the eternal one. The only hope he gives if this body is destroyed is an eternal body. Another problem the idea faces is that Jesus didn't have an "interim" body and He is our example of what happens to us when we die. Jesus died in a physical body and was resurrected in an incorruptible body. the Third problem is that the idea of an interim body presupposes the existence of something that is man that exists apart from the physical body. The fourth problem is that Paul is not talking about what happens between death and the resurrection. His argument is about the resurrection. He talks about man dying and being resurrected.

Did you notice that in that passage Paul only mention the words spirit or soul once and it is the holy Spirit. He makes no mention a spirit or soul of man. He says nothing of either yet for some people inject that idea into verse 8

Also, notice his argument.

KJV 2 Corinthians 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.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
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. (2Co 5:1-4 KJV)

He contrasts 2 bodies, corruptible and incorruptible. One body is mortality and the other is eternal. The eternal body represents life. Paul's conclusion is that mortality may be swallowed up by life. He says that the eternal body may swallow up the mortal one. He leaves no place for an interim body. If there was an interim body then the eternal body would swallow up the interim body or both the interim and mortal bodies. But, if the interim body is in the middle between the mortal and eternal there is no way that he eternal could swallow up the mortal without also swallowing up the interim.

The passage you quoted from Revelation don't really support the idea of a disembodied consciousness because for one thing they don't specify a time. John is seeing the future, these events could also still be future at the present. If that is the case then they can't be used as proof of what takes place in the present.

Another reason they don't support that idea is because John is seeing a vision.

Also, Revelation uses figurative language quite a bit so this could easily be figurative language.

 

[Butch5]

You know what's funny about that statement is that I didn't appeal to etymology, that was a straw man argument. I simply gave the definitions of the words

 

[gr8grace3]

Hi gr8grace,

There are several problems with the "interim" body theory. Paul said,

NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (2Co 5:1 NKJ)
Paul only speaks of two bodies this one and the eternal one. The only hope he gives if this body is destroyed is an eternal body. Another problem the idea faces is that Jesus didn't have an "interim" body and He is our example of what happens to us when we die. Jesus died in a physical body and was resurrected in an incorruptible body. the Third problem is that the idea of an interim body presupposes the existence of something that is man that exists apart from the physical body. The fourth problem is that Paul is not talking about what happens between death and the resurrection. His argument is about the resurrection. He talks about man dying and being resurrected.

Did you notice that in that passage Paul only mention the words spirit or soul once and it is the holy Spirit. He makes no mention a spirit or soul of man. He says nothing of either yet for some people inject that idea into verse 8

Also, notice his argument.

KJV 2 Corinthians 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.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
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. (2Co 5:1-4 KJV)

He contrasts 2 bodies, corruptible and incorruptible. One body is mortality and the other is eternal. The eternal body represents life. Paul's conclusion is that mortality may be swallowed up by life. He says that the eternal body may swallow up the mortal one. He leaves no place for an interim body. If there was an interim body then the eternal body would swallow up the interim body or both the interim and mortal bodies. But, if the interim body is in the middle between the mortal and eternal there is no way that he eternal could swallow up the mortal without also swallowing up the interim.

The passage you quoted from Revelation don't really support the idea of a disembodied consciousness because for one thing they don't specify a time. John is seeing the future, these events could also still be future at the present. If that is the case then they can't be used as proof of what takes place in the present.

Another reason they don't support that idea is because John is seeing a vision.

Also, Revelation uses figurative language quite a bit so this could easily be figurative language.

So what do you believe happens to us after we die and before the resurrection?

 

[gr8grace3]

One more thing Butch, I do not support disembodied consciousness.I believe that we are always supplied with some type of body and are always conscious.

 

[Butch5]

So what do you believe happens to us after we die and before the resurrection?

I believe we're dead, that's what the Scriptures say. The dead know nothing and cannot praise God.

 

[Butch5]

One more thing Butch, I do not support disembodied consciousness.I believe that we are always supplied with some type of body and are always conscious.

Ok, I've not heard that before.

 

[turnorburn]

Butch5 said:

I believe we're dead, that's what the Scriptures say. The dead know nothing and cannot praise God.

I'm thinking the Sadducees believed as you do..

tob

*edit: forgot something "again" ... :blush

http://bibleseo.com/luke/sadducees-jesus-question-resurrection/

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You know what's funny about that statement is that I didn't appeal to etymology, that was a straw man argument. I simply gave the definitions of the words

Actually you did, you defined the word by it's roots. That is not how you define words in language. Perhaps you were just quoting a Lexicon, but not all of them are created equal. I have several of the best lexicons out there and they all say that it means "home."

You then asked me to find a verse that teaches what I was saying, and I already did such so I didn't see the point in going in circles.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5 said:

I'm thinking the Sadducees believed as you do..

tob

*edit: forgot something "again" ... :blush

http://bibleseo.com/luke/sadducees-jesus-question-resurrection/

Actually, the Jews believed that. The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection the Pharisees did. The question is why?

 

[Butch5]

Actually you did, you defined the word by it's roots. That is not how you define words in language. Perhaps you were just quoting a Lexicon, but not all of them are created equal. I have several of the best lexicons out there and they all say that it means "home."

You then asked me to find a verse that teaches what I was saying, and I already did such so I didn't see the point in going in circles.

I did quote a lexicon and I also have some of the best ones out there. The example you gave used the word as I said, to be among one's people. I could say I was overseas and came home to America. That doesn't mean I'm saying in my body. As you pointed out the context determines the meaning. Paul could mean either a human body or he could mean the church which calls the body quite often. If one accepts that there is a consciousness between death and the resurrection one can claim that Paul is talking about this period. However, this existence has not been proven, and has nothing to do with what Paul is discussing. He is discussing two different states, mortal which is corruptible and eternal which is incorruptible. While one is mortal they are away from the Lord, when they put on that body which is eternal or incorruptible they will be with the Lord. As I pointed out, in this passage Paul says nothing about man having a spirit or a man's soul. The only mention he makes of the word spirit is the holy Spirit. In everything he says man has a body.

You see, we can argue the points of this passage, but unless someone can show from the Scriptures, from and inductive argument that a man is conscious between death and the resurrection it's all a moot point. Many simply try to make a case by way of inference which doesn't prove their case unless they can show that the passage absolutely requires their interpretation. Anyone can infer something from Scripture, that doesn't mean it's correct, many inferences are simply wrong. An inference can be correct but one must remember, it's an inference. To say the Bible says xyz and then present a passage where one is inferring a doctrine cannot be used to say the Bible says xyz. So far that is all I've seen anyone present, not just in this discussion but in every discussion I've had on this subject. No one have ever presented Scripture that teach that man can live while his physical body is dead. You presented the passage from Hebrews 12.

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, (Heb 12:23 KJV)

Let's suppose those spirit are in Heaven. Does this mean that people are alive as a spirit after they are dead. The passage doesn't actually state that but one could "infer" if from the passage. However, that passage could easily be understood differently. Gen 2:7 says that God formed a body and breathed into it the breath/spirit of life. so, God breathed His breath/spirit into man. Ecc.3 says that when a man dies the body returns to God and the breath/spirit returns to God. If it's God's breath/spirit that is in the man and it returns to God and God is in Heaven then the spirits of just men (God's sprit/breath in them) is in Heaven with God. It doesn't mean that those men are alive, it doesn't require that those spirits are the men (their consciousness) who have just left physical bodies. It can easily be understood that those spirits are God's.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I did quote a lexicon and I also have some of the best ones out there. The example you gave used the word as I said, to be among one's people. I could say I was overseas and came home to America. That doesn't mean I'm saying in my body.

Of course it doesn't, but when a person says they are "at home in the body," it clearly does.

As you pointed out the context determines the meaning. Paul could mean either a human body or he could mean the church which calls the body quite often.

Yes, and there is nothing in the context that talks about the Church community, Paul always uses the term "body of Christ" in the context of a running metaphor. He wouldn't throw it out there without clearly demonstrating what he was talking about.

If one accepts that there is a consciousness between death and the resurrection one can claim that Paul is talking about this period. However, this existence has not been proven, and has nothing to do with what Paul is discussing.

Actually it has, with the statement that Jesus told the thief on the cross that today they would be in paradise. I instructed you on how temporal units are fronted at the beginning of a clause to demonstrate when the events take place. This means that that very day they were both in "paradise."

He is discussing two different states, mortal which is corruptible and eternal which is incorruptible. While one is mortal they are away from the Lord, when they put on that body which is eternal or incorruptible they will be with the Lord. As I pointed out, in this passage Paul says nothing about man having a spirit or a man's soul. The only mention he makes of the word spirit is the holy Spirit. In everything he says man has a body.

As I stated earlier, I don't think the conscious state intermediate to the resurrection is an important doctrine for Paul or Jesus, but I think the important thing is that the believer who has eternal life will never truly die and they will always be with the Lord. In life or death. Hence, to die is gain.

You see, we can argue the points of this passage, but unless someone can show from the Scriptures, from and inductive argument that a man is conscious between death and the resurrection it's all a moot point. Many simply try to make a case by way of inference which doesn't prove their case unless they can show that the passage absolutely requires their interpretation.

Sometimes grammar excludes certain interpretations, such as your interpretation of Jesus' statement in Luke. It's objectively wrong, and anyone who has studied discourse analysis in Greek knows this.

An inference can be correct but one must remember, it's an inference. To say the Bible says xyz and then present a passage where one is inferring a doctrine cannot be used to say the Bible says xyz. So far that is all I've seen anyone present, not just in this discussion but in every discussion I've had on this subject. No one have ever presented Scripture that teach that man can live while his physical body is dead. You presented the passage from Hebrews 12.

The Bible is not a systematic theology, stop treating it as such.

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, (Heb 12:23 KJV)

Let's suppose those spirit are in Heaven. Does this mean that people are alive as a spirit after they are dead. The passage doesn't actually state that but one could "infer" if from the passage. However, that passage could easily be understood differently. Gen 2:7 says that God formed a body and breathed into it the breath/spirit of life. so, God breathed His breath/spirit into man. Ecc.3 says that when a man dies the body returns to God and the breath/spirit returns to God. If it's God's breath/spirit that is in the man and it returns to God and God is in Heaven then the spirits of just men (God's sprit/breath in them) is in Heaven with God. It doesn't mean that those men are alive, it doesn't require that those spirits are the men (their consciousness) who have just left physical bodies. It can easily be understood that those spirits are God's.

Except it can't, because of the Genitive Case, as I already pointed out demonstrates a relationship of ownership. The spirits are not those of God, but of the righteous. This is another example where the grammar excludes a particular interpretation.

Perhaps its a bit more complicated then you at first expected? I remember when I was repeating the same things as you do on this very board until I found out that I had no way around these texts, the grammar simply cannot support it.

 

[Butch5]

Of course it doesn't, but when a person says they are "at home in the body," it clearly does.

Yes, and there is nothing in the context that talks about the Church community, Paul always uses the term "body of Christ" in the context of a running metaphor. He wouldn't throw it out there without clearly demonstrating what he was talking about.

How about “we”?

Actually it has, with the statement that Jesus told the thief on the cross that today they would be in paradise. I instructed you on how temporal units are fronted at the beginning of a clause to demonstrate when the events take place. This means that that very day they were both in "paradise."

I’ve already addressed that (and disagree with your conclusion), however, you still haven’t proven it because you’re argument “assumes” they were alive. If Jesus was in the grave and dead as Scriptures say then so was the thief.

The other question you have to address is what is paradise? If you claim they were both there that very day then we need to know what it is. Everywhere in Scripture that I’m aware of refers to it as the Eden of God whether before or after the resurrection. Yet most claim it’s in Hades, what say you?

I have another question too. The thief made a request of Jesus that He would remember him when He came into His kingdom, did Jesus answer the question or did He ignore it and tell the thief about the afterlife?

As I stated earlier, I don't think the conscious state intermediate to the resurrection is an important doctrine for Paul or Jesus, but I think the important thing is that the believer who has eternal life will never truly die and they will always be with the Lord. In life or death. Hence, to die is gain.

You may not but it seems many others do. Would you agree he is discussing to different states of being?

Sometimes grammar excludes certain interpretations, such as your interpretation of Jesus' statement in Luke. It's objectively wrong, and anyone who has studied discourse analysis in Greek knows this.

That’s not what I asked. Can you make an inductive argument to support that man can live with a body or that there is a disembodied consciousness that lives on after death./

The Bible is not a systematic theology, stop treating it as such.

Does that mean you’re not able to present one? It’s not about a systematic theology, it’s about making inferences from Scripture. Surely if such a teaching was in the Scriptures we could find something that states it, even if just in passing.

Paul repeatedly gives as the believers hope the resurrection. He doesn’t say one will spend eternity in Heaven, he doesn’t speak of being a disembodied consciousness with the Lord, it’s always only the resurrection that is the hope of the believer.

Except it can't, because of the Genitive Case, as I already pointed out demonstrates a relationship of ownership. The spirits are not those of God, but of the righteous. This is another example where the grammar excludes a particular interpretation.

I remember when you did, that’s part of the reason I was confused at your response. The grammar doesn’t exclude my interpretation. I know it’s in the genitive. It’s easily explained in the way we use language. Scripture says that all things belong to God, if that’s true then there is nothing that doesn’t belong to God. Suppose I said, that’s my money. I’ve used a possessive, is that correct grammar? Is the money really mine? No, all US currency is the property of the US Government. My statement is grammatically correct yet I don’t have ownership of the money. I’ve used the possessive to show possession and not ownership of the money. We do the same thing with land. If you look at land deed, at least where I live, you do not own that land, you have the right to use it. However, when we speak of it we say, my land. Again, we do the same with other things, what does someone say who is out of breath? I’m trying to catch my breath. Does that person own the air that is in their lungs? No, they don’t, it’s God’s air. They are using it and the possessive shows possession not ownership. So the spirit’s of just men being in the genitive doesn’t mean that the spirit cannot be God’s.

You said the grammar excludes my explanation, yet yours contradicts the Scriptures unless you can prove the existence of this spirit that is a man.

 

[turnorburn]

I'm missing something Butch5 maybe someone else can help you find what your looking for..

tob