| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 774 Registered: 4-2000  |
Excellent post, Mwh! Jacob and Jeremy, Great Biblical defense! The Biblical view of death and the afterlife is really difficult to miss. The hermeneutics of death is simply a reflection on the unconscious principles which we all follow when reading any piece of literature in general. We when pick up a newspaper or novel we observe grammar and syntax, context, etc. Likewise with Scripture, we are warned about the right and wrong ways to interpret the Bible (2 Peter 3:16, cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). Without any doubt, the SDA view of death is their worst deception. It affects the nature of Christ, the nature of man, and the nature of salvation (soteriology). Furthermore, this aberration of the Christian faith (conditionalism, soul sleep, and annihilationism) is the underlying necessity for a so-called "investigative judgment" alibi. This clearly shows how one error creates another error to cover up the first error. The beauty of Scripture is that it speaks with one voice. After all, God is the ultimate author of the Bible. May God help each of us to see the big picture and how Scripture neatly fits together like a completed puzzle. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4245 Registered: 12-2003  |
Mwhóyou're right, Paul speaks of this experience in the third person, and some people do believe he is not speaking of himself. However, in verse 7, after saying this man "heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell," Paul states in the first person, "To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Sabath, to torment me, Three time I pleaded with the Lord to tak it away from me. But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in your weakness.' " While there is some ambiguity, the context suggests that the "thrid heaven" experience was Paul himself. I'll refer again to 2 Corinthians 5:8-9: "We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him." Paul assumes that we are able to please God whether we are in our bodies our with Him. Ramone, regarding the "sleep" metaphor, there are facts we cannot know because they are not revealed to us. The way I understand it is that when we are in Christ during death, we know we are with Him. But we are not complete in our own, independent gorified bodies yet. We are therefore limited, undoubtedly, in our ability to move freely about the universe, etc. But the sleep does not appear to be unconscious. Philippians 1:22-23 says it is better by far to die and be with the Lord. "Better by far" cannot mean "unknowing". Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 127 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wow, a lot to respond to... Jackob, about Hebrews 12... I didn't say it was about the resurrection at all, actually, but that it's about *now*. The contrast of "Mount Zion/the heavenly Jerusalem" and the previous verses (Sinai) is showing the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The author in essence is echoing the entire theme of Hebrews (the New vs. the Old) and basically is saying "You have not come to Sinai (the Old), you have come to Christ (the New)". The passage speaks of things that could be read as "in heaven" or "on earth" or both. The mixture represents the mystery that we are all actually in Christ, and therefore are already together. Verse 23 actually says "the church of the firstborn"---so we can't put everything in the passage as being "in heaven" after dying, can we? Their names are "written in heaven" just like Jesus said, "rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (Lk.10:20). Great parallel "mixed location" expressions like these can also be found throughout Paul's writings, for example, what I cited earlier in Ephesians 2:6, "You have been raised up with Christ and seated in heavenly places in Him". Again, the mystery of the term "made perfect" is seen throughout Hebrews not only in this passage, but particularly in chapter 10 verse 14... "by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." This speaks of all who have trusted Him through all time. I noticed later the same expression at the end of Hebrews 11 (vs.39-40), "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." The author was referring to Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. If we say that "made perfect" is talking about life after death, then we would have to argue that the end of chapter 11 might clearly indicate that they will not be "made perfect" until we are together with them, implying that they are now still waiting to be made perfect. But again, I'm not sure that any of these passages are particularly talking about what happens after death. I don't rule it out, but I think that the expression in 10:14 shows we're looking at the glorious mystery of being in Christ, of having been made perfect already in Him and yet witnessing His Holy Spirit working inside us while we're still alive. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4248 Registered: 12-2003 |
I think, Ramone, that it's not the "made perfect" phrase that suggests consciousness after death but the word "spirits". Here is what the study notes of the NIV Study Bible say about this passage: "For the most part, these were pre-Christian believers such as Abel (11:4) and Noah (11:7). They are referred to as "spirits" because they are waiting for the resurrection and as "righteous" because God credited their faith to them as righteousness, as he did to Abraham (see Romans 4:3). Actual justification was not accomplished, however, until Christ made it complete by his death on the cross (see 11:40; Ro 3:24-26; 2:23-25)." Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 128 Registered: 10-2002 |
Colleen--- Your first post about Paul & 2 Corinthians 5 made me think a lot! I ended up staying awake very late looking at the Scripture and writing notes. I'd never heard some of the things you'd written before, and it was very good to read and consider them. So I want to respond to your post before I get to the other responses here. ***** About Paul's vision You had written about the date of Paul's vision vs. epistles, etc., but I'm not very clear on the dates of Paul's writings. I remember sitting through an incredibly boring class at LSU that seemed to be all about that... whether Paul visited Corinth three times or four, whether 2 Corinthians is actually *two* letters (the second beginning at chapter 10), etc. I think it would be difficult to guess what Paul wrote from seeing in a visit to heaven, and what he wrote from learning from the Spirit while on earth. He doesn't make it clear, so I can't really say. The only thing he mentions of heaven is that he saw things he wasn't permitted to tell about, and I have no idea what those things were! Interestingly, I'm also not sure that Paul is talking about his own vision, as Mwh pointed out. The reason is that I don't see why Paul shouldn't be talking about someone else. I have a friend who some years ago began to see angels and other visions. He was not able to tell me many of the things he saw---some because he couldn't describe them, and others because he was not permitted to. I have told his story to friends (how God interrupted his life and called him to Himself) over and over. You might say I've "boasted" about my friend, haha! I've been jealous at times of the visual gift he has. Yet when confessing this to my friend, he confessed to me that he'd been jealous of the understanding that I had! He saw many things but did not always understand them; on the other hand he felt I'd been given a gift of interpretation. It was very interesting and very healing to share this together and know. Anyway, having the experience I've had (being friends with gifted people), I don't think it's utterly necessary to deduce that Paul is talking about himself. At times when sharing with others about the things God's done among my friends and I, I've shared others' stories more than my own, subconsciously to lend more credibility to what I've learned. Having such gifted friends, I think I could easily become conceited. But among other things, God pulled me away from them so that I would have no crutches but Him. ***** About 2 Corinthians 5 "We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him." Of this verse you wrote, "Paul assumes that we are able to please God whether we are in our bodies our with Him." I'd never thought of it this way. In fact, I think I read lightly over the whole passage. All the same, after you'd pointed out this way of reading it, something struck me: If 5:9 refers to being able to please God in the time after dying, then conversely it must also be possible to displease God after you die. Huh??? I don't think we want that kind of theology! But if we say that after death you can "please" God, then we also must apparently be able to displease God. Somewhere it's written that we're appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, so I don't believe that we can displease God after we die, especially since we have left the flesh (the sinful nature) behind. I think now, rather, that this passage is probably not talking about life-after-death at all. To be clear, I think 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 is talking about the longing for the resurrection "wholeness", yet 5:6-10 is not talking about death & the resurrection, but is instead repeating the same theme as in 4:7-18. Interestingly, Paul's conclusions in verses 6 and 8 could be put in a diagram: At home in body = away from the Lord At home with the Lord = Away from body But then verse 9 would destroy this diagram, since it says that we aim to please Him, whether at home in the body or away from it (so that there is no condemnation for those who are "at home" in the body). Additionally (and this is important), if "at home in the body" = our life in our bodies on earth, then it would seem Paul is saying that being in the body means we are "away from God". But I don't think He's saying that at all. The whole New Testament indicates that we can please the Lord while in our bodies. Being in the body does not mean we are inherently "away" from the Lord. In light of all this, it seems that "away" does not mean "dead", but rather the attitude Paul shared in chapter 4: It seems that "at home in the body" means the attitude of being comfortable in your body, while being "away" from the body would mean when your body is---like Paul's---being constantly destroyed and abused. It would seem in 5:6-10 that he's not talking about a state of the afterlife at all, but rather is continuing the same theme he began and left off with in chapter 4. This is further reinforced by the verse in the middle (verse 7) which we completely skip when using this passage to refer to the afterlife: "We live by faith, not by sight". It's a clear echo of the end of chapter 4. Further, there is 5:10 -- "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." This follows directly behind vs.9 -- "We make it our goal to please Him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it." The word "for" at the beginning of 10 shows the thoughts are immediately connected: We make it our aim to please Him (at home in the body or not at home in the body) because we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ where we will receive what is due us for the things done while in the body. In other words, 5:10 directly suggests that "at home in the body" and "not at home in the body" are all things done while in the body. Does that make sense? I'm no Greek scholar and I can't pretend to have even studied. But I pulled out my parallel Bible and looked at it. Here's what the parallel translation says: I put two things of note which I in bold. One is in 5:6 -- (English) "While we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord" (Greek) "Being in home in the body we are away from home [when] away from the Lord" The two "aways" in Greek seem to be combined into one "away" in English. I think the Greek makes it more interesting, because it seems to suggest that our real home is with the Lord, and that it's not quite natural to be totally "at home" in our bodies. The second thing I put in bold is in 5:8 -- (English) "We would rather be away from the body, and at home with the Lord." (Greek) "We are pleased rather to leave home out from the(our) body and to be at home with the Lord" The English says "be away", but the Greek seems to have this interesting verb-ishness: "leave home out from the body". But anyway, the idea seems to be that we "leave" being at home in our body, and find our "home" in Him. This harmonizes well with the theme not only of chapter 4, but also with the first five verses of chapter 5. The theme of those verses seems to clearly be that "if our earthly tent is destroyed, we have a tent in heaven". (That this passage is talking of the resurrection seems to me clear because of its parallel expressions to 1 Cor.15-- clothed, swallowed up, eternal house/imperishable body, "from heaven", and the assurance that our labor in Him is not in vain). In sight of that, the theme of verses 6-10 seems to be: This "tent" is not our home! A quick way to sum up things might be like this: We're struck down & destroyed, but we have a new heavenly body coming, so we're confident with our faith in what is unseen; we walk by faith, not by sight, and so we're at home in the Lord whether we're comfortable here or not comfortable. In conclusion (thus far), I think that it's possible to make a case for "going to heaven" after you die, but that we can't use 2 Cor.5 to do it because it misses the context of chapter 4, 5:7, and if we did, then we might suggest that one could displease God after death. Additionally, 5:10 seems to qualify the previous terms as things done "while in the body". Rather, it seems Paul is making a parallel agreement with Hebrews 11:8-16 and 1st John 2:15-17. ***** Other In studying these things the other night, the "tent" metaphor became even more interesting to me because John said Jesus became flesh and "tabernacled" among us (John 1:14, Greek). I bet there is a connection to the Feast of Tabernacles? In Egypt the Israelites were "at home", but were in slavery. God brought them out and they lived "in tents" on their way to the promised land. Likewise, we were born into slavery, but God has brought us out in His Son, and we now understand we're "not at home" here, but we're on a journey to heaven (the promised land). Our "home" is in Him. Even better, we take up residence in His tent---His flesh & blood! | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 129 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jackob & Colleen-- In re-reading your posts about Hebrews 12, I thought of two things... One, this verse seems a bit of a parallel to me: "Now I commit you to God and to the word of His grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified." (Acts 20:32) The second thing was some support for the ideas you were suggesting about Hebrews 12 in Philippians 3:12-14, Here it seems Paul is referring to "made perfect" in a final sense. However, at the same time, in the previous verses he talks about the resurrection from the dead. So then it flips back the other way... if we look at "made perfect" to refer to this final state after dying, then Paul is indicating that it occurs after the resurrection. This would lend support to the usage of "made perfect" at the end of Hebrews 11, where we could infer that the saints are not yet "made perfect" (their spirits are---as are ours), but the saints (as a whole) are not yet made perfect, and they will only be together made perfect with us. But again, I'm thinking more that Hebrews 11:40 refers to being made perfect in Christ (akin to Hebrews 10:14). As for Hebrews 12, I can't make too much doctrine out of it because it mixes those who are on earth with those who are in heaven in a way that I think is probably not clear enough to make doctrine out of. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 130 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jeremy--- I have trouble with rigidly making the definition of "sleep" refer to the body alone. There are three reasons I can't quite say it's the body only: One, in 1st Thessalonians 5, Paul assuages sorrow for those who have "fallen asleep" by telling them of the resurrection instead of saying that they have gone to heaven and are with Christ now. Two, when we sleep now, we lose consciousness. But then as we get deeper into sleep, we enter a different kind of consciousness. It's irregular, isn't it? Sometimes we dream, sometimes we don't. Our consciousness seems definitely tied to and affected by our body's state & condition. Though "death" must push the envelope further, the usage of the metaphor "sleep" by Jesus & Paul suggests that death & sleep are perhaps not altogether dissimilar. How similar? How different? I don't know. But the irregularity of our own "sleep" I think is a very good clue. Three, we find ourselves unable to use both terms today (with the Lord & asleep). We've preferrd "with the Lord" and have dispensed with "asleep" completely, even calling it "cultic" if someone does not say that you go to heaven when you die. Imagine, if we were to have a conversation with Paul and he said "asleep", we would make sure the guy quickly qualified his statements, wouldn't we! I think what Cullmann (and the Orthodox) suggest is a way to use both Biblical expressions --- that we are with Christ and yet are asleep. This mystery, I think so far, is something that is accomplished through the mystery of the Holy Spirit. As for the "full consciousness" of the dead being proven by Luke 16, I can't go there... firstly because I keep wondering, "What the heck is Abraham's bosom???" (As Heb.11:40 seems to say, Abraham is still waiting to be "made perfect"). I honestly don't know what to make of Luke 16 except that it bears the marks of a parable instead of a passage meant to teach doctrine about life after death. Remember how Dale Ratzlaff separated the NT passages that mentioned Sabbath to highlight those which directly taught about Sabbath and those which merely mentioned it? In a similar way, I think that Luke 16 is not directly aimed at life & death, but its primary focus is seen in its punchline. Still, it's a mystery. About Samuel's spirit, the way I guess about it is that Samuel was disturbed by Saul & the witch---awakened, perhaps. More interesting, however, is that Samuel clearly told Saul, "Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me." Unless heaven and hell are in the same place, it seems that Saul & sons would join Samuel in the grave (or Sheol). I've heard a preacher (non-Adventist) explain his belief about what happens after death (and he did so while stating it was his belief and not dogmatic fact), that he believed when Christ died, the people in the grave who were His were taken to heaven, and that now we go to heaven. But before, we waited in the grave, he believed. This would run into some inconsistency though if we compare Samuel's ghost to the parable of Luke 16, which would seem to imply that the dead go to either heaven or hell (all this being prior to Christ's death & resurrection). Additionally, it seems a little close to the idea of "sifting" the dead prior to the last judgment, which runs a bit contrary to the parables of the Wheat & Tares (Parable of the Weeds) and the parable of the Sheep & the Goats. The latter, the Sheep & Goats, interestingly suggests the surprise many will have at finding themselves embraced by Christ and welcomed into His kingdom, which they did not expect. Speculating further, if they had gone to heaven when they died, why would they be surprised at the final judgment? Conclusion?? Conscious or not conscious? I don't know. The metaphor of "asleep" still speaks strongly to me, not particuarly because we have so little room for allowing its use today. But then again, do our spirits sleep? God often talks to us while we're asleep, and I dare say that perhaps our spirits aren't quite alseep. This probes deep into the mysteries of what the "spirit" is---mysteries which are not easily defined but are definitely not forbidden to be explored! | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 131 Registered: 10-2002 |
Oops, I meant 1st Thessalonians 4, where Paul assuages the sorrow of those whose loved ones had "fallen asleep" by telling them about the resurrection (instead of saying their loved ones were with Christ in heaven). | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 132 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jeremiah--- Thanks again for mentioning the similarity between Cullmann's view and the Oriental/Eastern Orthodox beliefs. Colleen--- Thanks for mentioning the difference between Adventist & Non-Adventist post-mortem beliefs (hey, that's funny-- "post-mortem beliefs"). I appreciate seeing the vast difference between knowing the Spirit/spirit and not knowing the Spirit/spirit which is seen in the inanimate idea of Adventism. Snowboardingmom (Grace)--- I loved your honest comments that reflect my own searching about this issue! And I also liked the passages you quoted from Cullmann, which I think are worthy of re-posting, along with your conclusion:
| ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jeremiah--- I'm curious, are you Orthodox? What do you believe? I'm asking this because the more I study about this issue, the more I find I can't quite accept the traditional mainstream Christian idea because, like Cullmann found, I think it is a Greek idea rather than the original Christian one. Yet there is a lot of comfort in believing what others do. When I was Adventist, of course, we had that community of common belief, but we proudly stood opposed to the rest of Christianity's beliefs. In fact, that made us cling to our different beliefs all the more. Now, however, I find that in studying I can't quite get along with every belief in mainstream Christianity, whether the rapture, beliefs about the nation of Israel, or in this case, the state of the dead. I admit it's quite a strange feeling! I don't like disagreeing. And it's even more uncomfortable if you believe something (like "asleep") but cannot mention it for fear of being "corrected" or called cultic. I guess I'm asking what it's like to believe something different than the mainstream (if you do), and then how you handle that. I'm learning this anew, because in Adventism we approached it from a rather different attitude. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 112 Registered: 1-2004  |
No, I'm not Orthodox... officially, that is! I'm on my way into the church though unless something prevents it. And Orthodoxy isn't "different" if you take the history of Christianity as a whole. It is different than Protestantism especially American Protestantism. There are some differences with the Catholicism of the past 1000 years or so, too. If you're brave, I suggest visiting an Orthodox church, and discussing any questions with a priest. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 113 Registered: 1-2004 |
To more specifically answer your question about life after death, I would say that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is seen as a good description of Hades. It's not "heaven" and "hell". It's the "asleep" state. Our spirits are conscious, and we have a fortaste of what we will experience after the resurrection. However, the time you and I are in right now is seen as the 1000 years of Revelation, and there are "saints" living and reigning with Christ, who haven't ceased to be a part of the Body of Christ, and so in Orthodox thought it is ok to ask them to pray for us. The passages in Hebrews including the one about the "cloud of witnesses" really come to mind when a person looks around inside an Orthodox temple and sees all the icons. The temple is made to look just like heaven... so if you take the description of what's happening in heaven given in Revelation you will see the similarities in Orthodox worship. Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4249 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, I amend what I said re: 2 Corinthians 5:9. I went back and looked at the whole passage and read the study notes, and in context it does seem as if that verse is saying in essence, "Whether we are alive in the body or dead when Christ comes, we make it our goal to please Him." All in all, I believe we can't be too specific about our condition during death. One big thing I believe we can conclude, however, is that we do not disappear like an animal, rembered only in the mind of God. Our spirits actually know Him, and those will not be separated from him. Here are a list of texts and conclusions I believe we can make: Our spirits are not our literal, physical minds (1 Corinthians 1 and 2). They are parts of us that come alive when we are born again, and they are able to know and worship God. (John 3:5-6; 4:21-24) Nothingónot even deathócan separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39). If we were non-existent, a mere memory in the mind of God, we would be separated from God. (I remember many years ago, when we were still Adventists, when someone very dear to me died. I was quite despondent, and Richard, comforting me, said, "Just think how God feels, too. He shares your grief because His friend is now where He can't talk to him, either." Now that perspective just seems horrifying. We are never separated from God when we are in Christ.) Whatever our actual state is in death, it appears to be disembodied (2 Corinthians 5:1-8), although we are not separated from Christ [He clothes us?]. Yet this state appears to be preferable to being alive in the body (2 Cor. 5:6-8; Philippians 1:22-23). Because we now are alive in Christ, are lives are hidden with Him in God (Col 2:3). This "at home" condition in God cannot be broken by death (Romans 8:38-39). Our spirits/souls, the part of us which return to God and can worship Him and know Him and become alive with the indwelling Holy Spirit, can know things (Revelation 6:9; Luke 16:19-31). While there is much detail that we cannot possibly say with certainty, there are also certain facts which we can know based on these (and doubtless other!) texts. The Bible never gives us the notion, though, that when people die, they have bodies at that point, that they can move about the universe at will, that they can interact in any way with us who are alive. I am just SO relieved to know that even death cannot separate me from Him because once in Him, I will never die (John 11:25-26). Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 776 Registered: 4-2000 |
"Scripture presents Christ in his death as making a substitutionary atonement for his people (Rom. 3:25-26;Gal.3:13;Col.2:13-14). This means he died in their place and bore the punishment that they deserved. This does not mean, however, that he literally endured never-ending punishment. If he had, he would be on the cross forever and wouldn't be able to save anyone. Instead, he suffered the equivalent of eternal punishment; his temporal anguish was equal to the eternal condemnation due sinful human beings. How can this be? Perhaps the most obvious starting point for solving this difficulty is the observation that Christ who suffered was neither sinful nor merely a human being. When Jesus endured the wrath due sinful humanity, it was as the incarnate God-man; when by virtue of his human nature he suffered separation from his Father's love, it was as the eternal Son of God who had become human; when he bore the penalty of our sins, it was as the sinless substitute, whose own life merited the exact opposite of God's wrath. In light of such considerations it is not surprising that Jesus could have borne on the cross what sinful, rebellious human beings can only bear in hell forever. In other words, because of the infinite dignity of Christ's person, his sufferings, though finite in duration, were of infinite weight on the scales of divine justice (much as his righteousness, though displayed during his incarnation over a finite period, is of infinite weight). As God incarnate, Jesus was capable of suffering in six hours on the cross what we can suffer only over an infinite period of time. For believers death means being "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). That is why our Lord said at his death, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). That is why he promised the penitent dying thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). That is why Paul described departing the body to be with Christ as "better by far" than remaining in the body (Phil. 1:23). And that is why Scripture speaks of deceased human beings as souls "under the altar" (Rev. 6:9) and as "the spirits of righteous men made perfect" (Heb. 12:23). For unbelievers, however, death means being away from the body and absent from the Lord, experiencing concious suffering. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus plainly uses the parable as a vehicle to teach that death involves separation of soul (or spirit) from body, with the righteous and wicked immediately experiencing bliss or pain, respectively. Scripture teaches the existence of an intermediate state for both the just and unjust. Human beings do not cease to exist when they die. Rather, death marks the unnatural separation of their material and immaterial parts. Their bodies decay in the grave, while their immaterial parts continue to exist. The New Testament affirms that at death souls go immediately to an interim heaven or hell awaiting the resurrection and Last Judgment." (Excerpts taken from TWO VIEWS OF HELL by Robert A. Peterson) Annihilation does not constitute the ultimate punishment. Rather, annihilation would constitute the END of punishment. This would mean relief for the wicked in hell who are suffering for their sins. The ungodly in hell would like for annihilation to be true, as Jonathan Edwards noted more than two centuries ago: "Wicked men will hereafter earnestly wish to be turned to nothing and forever cease to be that they might escape the wrath of God." Annihilationists believe in an unjust God who would punish Job longer than Hitler. Now how loving is their picture of God? Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4253 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great post, Dennis. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1369 Registered: 10-2004  |
Agapetos, Regarding Luke 16 and what Abraham's Bosom is--it is not heaven. Before Christ, the righteous dead did not go to heaven. They went to a section of Hades which was called Abraham's Bosom and Paradise. Hades also contains a torment section, and the two sections are separated by a great chasm (Luke 16). The Jewish historian Josephus wrote regarding the section of Hades where the righteous dead were: "This place we call The Bosom of Abraham." (See this post where Chris posted what Josephus said about Hades, etc.) This is also why Samuel could prophesy what he did--he was not talking about heaven and hell. He was talking about Hades/Sheol--which is in the center of the earth. But anyway, even if the story in Luke 16 is a parable, it is still based on reality, as are all of His parables--it is not a fable. Paul commands us to pay no attention to Jewish fables (Titus 1:14). Everything Jesus said, including in Luke 16, was the Truth. He would not tell falsehoods to illustrate a certain point. He did not utter mythological tales in His teaching, and He did not go along with the prevailing false teachings of the Jews. As for the Orthodox view, they do not at all believe that the dead are unconscious. In fact, as Jeremiah pointed out, they believe that we can ask the dead saints to pray for us. Jeremy | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1412 Registered: 7-2003 |
My pastor did a sermon on the issue of hell recently, and one of the comments he made was that the reason he believes this a real story and not a parable is because Jesus used names. Most of the parables say "a certain man..." or some other generic reference. But this story names names. But he concluded as has been said elsewhere, even if the story is a parable, Jesus would not use such an incredible deception of reality to try to teach a truth. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting point about the names. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 141 Registered: 10-2002 |
Colleen and others who've referenced 2 Cor 5--- I was wondering if anyone had a response to the long thing I wrote about reading 2 Cor.5 in context? The other posts (particularly Jeremy's) will take a bit of reading and digesting, but I thought I'd re-pose these questions about 2 Cor.5:6-10: 1) Can we displease God after we die? 2) If "at home in the body" simply means "living in the body", then does that mean we are "away from the Lord" by simply being alive? 3) Doesn't 5:10 suggest that "at home" and "away from" the body are all still "in the body"? Again, there seems to be compelling argument for the non-sleeping belief, but the context of 2 Corinthians 5 (particularly verses 9-10) do not seem to lend support to it. If we remove verse 10 and only look at 9, then it would work better. We could even argue that "pleasing God" may be different than pleasing/displeasing, but verse 10 qualifies it by saying that we must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Dennis--- Although I'm not questioning annihilation, I really appreciated that quote, especially the first paragraph. Thanks. On the other hand, though, the first paragraph talks of Jesus' suffering, yet the second seems to cast doubt on the suffering in the first by saying Jesus' spirit was in paradise (with the thief) instead of suffering. I suppose this could be resolved by saying that His soul suffered, not His spirit. I'll have to think & pray on that, though, because it could lead to interesting ramifications... Jeremy & Melissa--- I don't have much a problem if the story of Lazarus is fictional. For example, Jude quoted from the non-canonical book of Enoch. The parable of Lazarus begins the same way that the Good Samaritan & Prodigal Son parables do, and many others. Additionally, Jesus also called one woman a "dog". I'm one who had done drama before, so these things aren't quite a problem to me. All--- I'll get to reading the thing about Abraham's Bosom in a moment (it looks really interesting!), but first I have a question: If the dead are fully conscious in Sheol, don't you find the expression "asleep" to be a completely inappropriate way to describe the dead? | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2002 |
(Just read Chris' post about Josephus) While it seems to clear some things up, at the same time point #6 nearly quotes the New Testament word for word! Since there was much debate between the Pharisees & Saduccees about the existence of angels, are we sure that Josephus' view was the complete representation of Jewish thought? The Jews also disagreed about the resurrection and eternal life. For example, the end of Daniel suggests eternal life & punishment very clearly (but also says we "sleep" and "awake" until then), but the end of Isaiah talks of long life followed by death in the new earth. Additionally, Jewish thought, as far as I've learned from Jewish friends & looking at Jewish pages online, Jewish thought had not attributed such things as in point #6 to the Messiah, who they believed was more of a military leader and not given the divine attributes we give him in Christianity (definitely the Jews had not identified him "the word" as this passage claims!). The Josephus passage seems to have been written with knowledge of and belief in the full New Testament... and because of that, it doesn't seem like something written by a Jewish historian, but rather by a very Christian historian who used New Testament passage to put together a theology of what happens after death. I'm curious about the credits for the passage (where it's from, and where it can be verified and read). I'll pray on it tonight and pray & read it more tomorrow. (It's bedtime here in Osaka) Blessings in Jesus to you all! In His rest, Ramone | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 777 Registered: 4-2000 |
COMMENTARY ON LUKE 16 "The rabbinic literature before, during, and after the time of Christ is filled with parables which built imaginative stories around real historical characters. There are multiple examples in the Talmud and Midrash of parables in which Abraham had dialogues with people such as Nimrod, with whom he could never have spoken literally. Everyone understood that these parables and dialogues did not literally take place. It was understood that the rabbis used imaginative stories and dialogues as a teaching method. It was understood by all that these dialogues never took place. Therefore, it does not bother us in the least to say that Christ used a rabbinic story and dialogue in Luke 16:19-31 which was not "true" or "real" in the sense of being literal. It is obvious that Lazarus did not literally sit in Abraham's literal bosom. The rich man did not have literal lips which literal water could quench. What is important for us to grasp is that Christ used the mental images conjured up by this rabbinic parable to teach that, in the hereafter, the wicked experience torment and the righteous bliss. This is clear from the rabbinic sources from which he drew this parable. Since the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham was a teaching tool used by the rabbis before Christ, it is obvious that Christ was not trying to teach that we will talk with the wicked in the hereafter. He was merely using the dialogue method to get across the concept that there is no escape from torment, no second chance, and we must believe the Scriptures in THIS life unto salvation. That the Epistles would further develop what happens to the soul after death and go beyond the gospel material is also expected. The apostles were conscious of the fact that their understanding was clouded during their sojourn with Christ (John 12:16). It was only after Pentecost and the final revelations given to the apostles that they could, at last, speak of death and the afterlife with clarity. It was only after the last pieces of the cosmic puzzle of revelation were given that they could see the whole picture." (Excerpts from DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE by Robert A. Morey, p.85) Dennis Fischer |
