Why "Absent From The Body" Does NOT Support Immortal Soul Doctrine

[Mark Quayle]

She practiced sorcery - how frightened could an old pro like her be?

She was scared when she discovered it was SAUL who had slaughered everyone with a familar spirit

Yet her fear doesn't show until she realized it was Samuel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hello, what other channels does God communicate by except dreams/visions and prophets...AND URIM? Urim was not a common means of communication among people, mainly the priesthood, so the fact that URIM is mentioned is pretty much a slammed door on the last means of communication.

Samuel was a prophet - God refused to answer Saul by prophets. Therefore, it was a demon impersonating Samuel, and those of us who know the truth will never be seduced by the "spirits of devils working miracles" that are coming upon the Earth to seduce everyone, including the immortal soul crowd, if they don't start stepping correct, my brother.

My question deals with your terminology: "closed off". It is one thing to stop, like closing a valve. It is another to close it off, like throwing away the key. You think God stopped never to do otherwise. I think he stopped. The valve can be opened again as he pleases.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The fact I believe the dead in Christ do indeed go immediately to be with the Lord upon dying, and that, perhaps even for them is in the eyes of God, and maybe from their new POV not a question of time or delay, but that they are 'immediately' (in our temporal language) raised incorruptible, doesn't make it true.

So, let's focus on finding out what the truth is...because if we believe the dead really aren't dead, we're opening ourselves up to demonic deception if the dead are indeed really dead.

Nor does the fact you believe otherwise make your assertion true. You haven't shown me how either POV is true nor how it is false.

You have to have eyes to see and ears to hear. "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything...neither have they any more a portion in anything that is done under the sun." I think that's plain enough, yes

—You have not shown that 'Samuel' can't have been Samuel

Samuel was both a prophet and was dead - the dead can't communicate with the living and God refused to communicate with Saul by prophets. I think that's plain enough.

—Luke 23:43 says 'Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”' and you are contradicting it.

No, if you insist on inserting an uninspired comma, you're putting it in the wrong spot. It should say, "Truly I tell you today (pause), you will be with Me in paradise."

In the Septuagint, the word "samaron" ("today") precedes the verb it modifies only 50 times, but follows the verb it modifies a whopping 170 times, so the majority use of the word has "today" has it modifying "I say" rather than "will be".

—I agree that "Souls under the altar" and "blood crying out" is God desiring to avenge unjust bloodshed; the "merely" part, I don't think you can prove.

I has to be, because dead "souls" can't make noise - they cease to be, according to Genesis 2:7 KJV. Also, red and white corpuscles don't have vocal chords.

It's symbolic imagery, especially "souls under the altar of Revelation,the most symbolic book in Scripture, bro!

—Your argument: '"preached to them that are dead" means the Gospel was preached to everyone since Genesis 3:15 ' is so far mere assertion, but even if proven, does not necessarily imply that the dead in Christ don't go 'immediately' to heaven as bodily resurrected, from God's POV.
—By, "spirit of Jesus/spirits in prison", I assume you are referring to 1 Peter 3:19, 20: "After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water" from which it is so far mere assertion that God is pleading through Noah to them in the 'prisonhouse of sin' —not to mention that you have not shown how even that necessarily implies that the dead in Christ are not 'immediately' (in our temporal language) raised incorruptible to be with the Lord, from God's POV.

I don't think you understand how this works:

First I show the massive glacier of cold, hard Scriptural evidence that clearly establishes the dead don't know anything, see anything, hear anything, praise anything, remember anything, plan anything, have emotions, have anything to do with the living, etc, etc, etc.
Then, I show how the verses the immortal soul crowd uses to contradict this above evidence can be explained to actually be harmonious with it, which then settles the issue.

The immortal soul crowd, however, finds a few verses that appear to contradict the above evidence, places these few verses on top the rest of the evidence, and pretends what they have is all there is to see, like some disharmonious hermeneutical iceberg.

So, yeah, I'm thinking you're missing quite a bit. Just as one fr'instance: He is "God of the living" according to Christ.

I'll let Tyndale's respond to this via his response to catholic Sir Thomas Moore's use of "God of the living" to support immortal soul doctrine in the same way you do so:

Tyndale:​

“The true faith putteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put forth that the souls did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together, things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the spirit and the flesh do (agree) in a Christian man. And because the fleshly-minded Pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the scripture to establish it (heathen doctrine).”​

​

“And when he (Sir Thomas Moore) proveth that the saints be in heaven in glory with Christ already, saying, “If God be there God, they be in heaven, for he is not the God of the dead”, there he stealeth Christ's argument wherewith He proveth the resurrection: that Abraham and all the saints should rise again, and not that they souls were in heaven; which doctrine was not yet in the world. And with that doctrine, he (Moore) taketh away the resurrection quite, and maketh Christ's argument of none effect.​

​

Nay, Paul, thou art unlearned. Go to master Moore and learn a new way. We be not most miserable, though we rise not again; for our souls go to heaven as soon as we be dead, and are there in as great joy as Christ that is risen again. I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine if he had wist (known) it – that the souls of there dead had been in joy – as he (comforted them) with the (words of) the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, master Moore, show me what cause there should be of the resurrection?”​

You also have not shown that the literary style of several references to the capabilities of souls that have died is not hermeneutically relevant to the doctrinal conclusions you have drawn from them (or am I mistaken that you were doing that? —I'm not going to bother to go research who it was.)

No, it's the immortal soul crowd which denies literary style, specifically Hebrew Chiastic Structure, which proves 1 Thessalonians 4:14 does not refer to Jesus bringing dead saints already in heaven back with Him at the Second Coming, but proves God will bring the saints forth from the tomb just as He brought Jesus forth from the tomb:

(A) For if we believe that Jesus died [DEATH]
(B) and rose again (from the tomb) [RESURRECTION]
(A) even so them also which sleep in Jesus [DEATH]
(B) will God bring with Him (from the tomb) [RESURRECTION]

Hebrew chiasms are there to keep us on track, but some of the worst hermeneutical violations there are - eschatological - are directly the result of ignoring the chiasms.

Also, your take on
Ecclesiastics 12:7 brought up by @Sheila Davis is also, assertion without proof. Just saying; it is your POV —only your take.

No proof?
All through Scripture, we're told the Spirit "returns" to God when a creature dies.
Can YOU return to the moon? Why not?
So, why argue the Spirit which "returns" to God is any different than it was when it initially came forth from God? Because people have been taught error for so long, they can't unlearn what they learned, that's why!

Nevertheless, it was never my intention to prove to you what I think on this subject. It is you that continues pushing this back-and-forth. I'm not into a serious argument here.

Now, if you want to discuss the implication that the dead are incapable of doing anything alive, such as to "invite Jesus into their heart" —that we can seriously argue, as it is directly relevant to the Gospel of Christ and the meaning of the 'Grace' by which we are saved.

It was always my intention to help people unlearn popular errors about the State of the Dead and the only way we that can happen is if we openly discuss ideas to see if they line up with Scripture. I hope at least you'll consider everything I've said, which is how I ceased from the position that you now hold, bro.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Yet her fear doesn't show until she realized it was Samuel.

The demon impersonating Samuel revealed Saul was there, after which she screamed "Thou art Saul!"

 

[Phoneman-777]

My question deals with your terminology: "closed off". It is one thing to stop, like closing a valve. It is another to close it off, like throwing away the key. You think God stopped never to do otherwise. I think he stopped. The valve can be opened again as he pleases.

Scripture plainly says God refused to speak to Saul by prophets...therefore the thing speaking to Saul could not have been the prophet Samuel.

How much explicit, implicit, and circumstantial evidence do we need to pile on before we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that apparition could never have been the actual Samuel?

 

[cradleGO]

Some wrongly interpret verses to make the claim Jesus died and went to hell and preached to the dead in hell and set them free so they could go to heaven - a total misrepresentation of Scripture.

The Orthodox have as its Resurrection icon the image of Jesus pulling Adam and Eve out of "the tombs" along with other Old Testament personages. So, I must disagree with your assessment. However, I cannot argue the point, except to say that your reasoning for "many" that were raised and were seen not being an example of what is available for Christians, is pretty thin. There may be a better reason or a Scriptural reference that supports that notion, but this isn't it.

Now, if the Orthodox view of Redemption (Jesus positions humanity - alive and dead - to return to the Garden - the same relationship that Adam and Eve had with God) is correct, and perhaps even if it isn't, then I think Jesus' Resurrection would have immediate impact on humanity. The Hebrews and now the Jews couldn't understand the Triune Nature of God. But Jesus' followers had some understanding - some more than others - that Jesus was of God, and was God. So, beginning with them, it seems that the OT way had to be modified for the New Reality.

On page two are references to Rev 20, where it seems that some people were/are with Jesus for 1000 years until the Judgment of the ?wicked? is done. Why couldn't those people be Christians that were with Jesus?

I would summarize it as the OT is the promise and prophecy of Jesus - and where humanity was with God before jesus, and the NT is the fulfillment of Jesus, and how humanity relates to God in light of Jesus and the Triune God.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The Orthodox have as its Resurrection icon the image of Jesus pulling Adam and Eve out of "the tombs" along with other Old Testament personages. So, I must disagree with your assessment. However, I cannot argue the point, except to say that your reasoning for "many" that were raised and were seen not being an example of what is available for Christians, is pretty thin. There may be a better reason or a Scriptural reference that supports that notion, but this isn't it.

Now, if the Orthodox view of Redemption (Jesus positions humanity - alive and dead - to return to the Garden - the same relationship that Adam and Eve had with God) is correct, and perhaps even if it isn't, then I think Jesus' Resurrection would have immediate impact on humanity. The Hebrews and now the Jews couldn't understand the Triune Nature of God. But Jesus' followers had some understanding - some more than others - that Jesus was of God, and was God. So, beginning with them, it seems that the OT way had to be modified for the New Reality.

On page two are references to Rev 20, where it seems that some people were/are with Jesus for 1000 years until the Judgment of the ?wicked? is done. Why couldn't those people be Christians that were with Jesus?

I would summarize it as the OT is the promise and prophecy of Jesus - and where humanity was with God before jesus, and the NT is the fulfillment of Jesus, and how humanity relates to God in light of Jesus and the Triune God.

Can we abandon Orthodoxy and just stick with Paul and Jesus?

"The hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they shall come forth".

"For the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel (Jesus, the "ruler of the angels"), and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first..."

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, let's focus on finding out what the truth is...because if we believe the dead really aren't dead, we're opening ourselves up to demonic deception if the dead are indeed really dead.


You have to have eyes to see and ears to hear. "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything...neither have they any more a portion in anything that is done under the sun." I think that's plain enough, yes

Samuel was both a prophet and was dead - the dead can't communicate with the living and God refused to communicate with Saul by prophets. I think that's plain enough.


No, if you insist on inserting an uninspired comma, you're putting it in the wrong spot. It should say, "Truly I tell you today (pause), you will be with Me in paradise."

In the Septuagint, the word "samaron" ("today") precedes the verb it modifies only 50 times, but follows the verb it modifies a whopping 170 times, so the majority use of the word has "today" has it modifying "I say" rather than "will be".


I has to be, because dead "souls" can't make noise - they cease to be, according to Genesis 2:7 KJV. Also, red and white corpuscles don't have vocal chords.

It's symbolic imagery, especially "souls under the altar of Revelation,the most symbolic book in Scripture, bro!


I don't think you understand how this works:

First I show the massive glacier of cold, hard Scriptural evidence that clearly establishes the dead don't know anything, see anything, hear anything, praise anything, remember anything, plan anything, have emotions, have anything to do with the living, etc, etc, etc.
Then, I show how the verses the immortal soul crowd uses to contradict this above evidence can be explained to actually be harmonious with it, which then settles the issue.

The immortal soul crowd, however, finds a few verses that appear to contradict the above evidence, places these few verses on top the rest of the evidence, and pretends what they have is all there is to see, like some disharmonious hermeneutical iceberg.

I'll let Tyndale's respond to this via his response to catholic Sir Thomas Moore's use of "God of the living" to support immortal soul doctrine in the same way you do so:

Tyndale:​

“The true faith putteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put forth that the souls did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together, things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the spirit and the flesh do (agree) in a Christian man. And because the fleshly-minded Pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the scripture to establish it (heathen doctrine).”​

​

“And when he (Sir Thomas Moore) proveth that the saints be in heaven in glory with Christ already, saying, “If God be there God, they be in heaven, for he is not the God of the dead”, there he stealeth Christ's argument wherewith He proveth the resurrection: that Abraham and all the saints should rise again, and not that they souls were in heaven; which doctrine was not yet in the world. And with that doctrine, he (Moore) taketh away the resurrection quite, and maketh Christ's argument of none effect.​

​

Nay, Paul, thou art unlearned. Go to master Moore and learn a new way. We be not most miserable, though we rise not again; for our souls go to heaven as soon as we be dead, and are there in as great joy as Christ that is risen again. I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine if he had wist (known) it – that the souls of there dead had been in joy – as he (comforted them) with the (words of) the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, master Moore, show me what cause there should be of the resurrection?”​

No, it's the immortal soul crowd which denies literary style, specifically Hebrew Chiastic Structure, which proves 1 Thessalonians 4:14 does not refer to Jesus bringing dead saints already in heaven back with Him at the Second Coming, but proves God will bring the saints forth from the tomb just as He brought Jesus forth from the tomb:

(A) For if we believe that Jesus died [DEATH]
(B) and rose again (from the tomb) [RESURRECTION]
(A) even so them also which sleep in Jesus [DEATH]
(B) will God bring with Him (from the tomb) [RESURRECTION]

Hebrew chiasms are there to keep us on track, but some of the worst hermeneutical violations there are - eschatological - are directly the result of ignoring the chiasms.


No proof?
All through Scripture, we're told the Spirit "returns" to God when a creature dies.
Can YOU return to the moon? Why not?
So, why argue the Spirit which "returns" to God is any different than it was when it initially came forth from God? Because people have been taught error for so long, they can't unlearn what they learned, that's why!

It was always my intention to help people unlearn popular errors about the State of the Dead and the only way we that can happen is if we openly discuss ideas to see if they line up with Scripture. I hope at least you'll consider everything I've said, which is how I ceased from the position that you now hold, bro.

On such a subject as this, I don't think you can know for sure. I didn't mean for this to get so serious, but in keeping with your pressure on debate I don't care for, I don't trust your hermeneutics, nor that you are not interpreting scripture according to your presuppositions, so I'm more than skeptical. You've done nothing to change my mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The demon impersonating Samuel revealed Saul was there, after which she screamed "Thou art Saul!"

1 Samuel 28:12 'When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"' Where does it say, or even imply, that Samuel revealed that the disguised Saul was Saul the king? She was not expecting Samuel, I say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scripture plainly says God refused to speak to Saul by prophets...therefore the thing speaking to Saul could not have been the prophet Samuel.

How much explicit, implicit, and circumstantial evidence do we need to pile on before we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that apparition could never have been the actual Samuel?

You seem rather frustrated. Perhaps you could argue with someone else to better effect. I've already told you I don't trust your hermeneutics, nor do I trust your reasoning, and certainly not your conclusions nor the theology you use to arrive there.

 

[NotreDame]

Verse by verse exposition in red of 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 KJV which explains why the Immortal Soul crowd's failure to recognize that Paul speaks of 3 options - not 2 - leads them to misquote and misunderstand verse 8, and wrongly conclude that the entire passage teaches the moment we cease to be alive down here, we're immediately alive in the presence of Jesus up there:

[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.
(We know if our mortal body returns to dust, God has reserved for us an immortal, resurrection body.)

[2] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
(In our mortal body "clothes" we groan with desire to change into our resurrection body "clothes".)

[3] If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
(If our desire to change into our resurrection clothes is granted, we'll not be found naked without any clothes.)

BOTH CONTEXT AND COMMON SENSE MAKE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
TO WHAT THIS "NAKED" STATE REFERS, AS SHOWN BELOW:

[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.
(While in our mortal body, we groan with desire to be done with life's burdens - not by resting in peace in the grave, lying naked, unclothed, without a body, dead, awaiting the resurrection - but for the eternal rest our immortal, resurrection clothes provide.)

NOTE: THOSE WHO INSIST "NAKED" AND "UNCLOTHED" HERE REFER TO THE "SPIRITUAL NAKEDNESS" OF BEING UNSAVED, LOST, SEPARATED FROM GOD, YOU DON'T REALIZE THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY CAUSING TO PAUL MAKE THE FOLLOWING STUPENDOUSLY ASININE STATEMENT:
"HEY GUYS, LIFE SUCKS IN THIS MORTAL BODY AND WE WANT RELIEF, BUT NOT THE RELIEF OF GETTING UNSAVED, LOST, SEPARATED FROM GOD...NO, WE WANT THE RELIEF THAT PUTTING ON OUR IMMORTAL, RESURRECTION CLOTHES PROVIDES."

A blind man can see the only way to remain contextually consistent, as well as demonstrate common sense, is to interpret "naked" and "unclothed" here as having nothing to do with being "spiritually lost" but as Paul plainly intended: the state of not wearing either a mortal or immortal body, resting in peace in the grave, lying naked, unclothed, without a body, dead, awaiting the resurrection.

[5] Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
(The same God Who bought for us our resurrection clothes with the Gospel also gives us assurance by His Spirit.)

[6] Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(We're always confident despite knowing while we're down here in our mortal body, we're not up there in our resurrection body.)

[7] (For we walk by faith, not by sight: )
(By faith we must walk the Path of the Just)

AND FINALLY WE COME TO WHY A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF "NAKED" AND UNCLOTHED" IS SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND WHAT VERSE 8 ACTUALLY SAYS, AND TO SEE THAT IT PROVIDES NO SUPPORT FOR IMMORTAL SOUL DOCTRINE AT ALL:

[8] We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
(We're confident in our promised resurrection clothes, and our preferencial desire is to immediately strip off these mortal clothes, skip resting in peace in the grave, lying naked, unclothed, without a body, dead, awaiting the resurrection, and go on to be present with the Lord in our resurrection, immortal clothes we get resurrection morning.)
Paul knew he wouldn't put on his immortal, resurrection clothes at death, but he himself says when he will in verse 10 - "For we must all appear before the Judgment seat of Christ" - at the end of time "at the last trump" when "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" Paul says "this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality". "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" is a misquote, distortion of Scripture. Upon such deception, sound Biblical doctrine needs no such reliance.

Nah…

Paul is discussing death and going to be with Jesus. We know this from the context. “while we are at home in the body we are absent (away) from the Lord…we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent (away) from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”

One literal Greek reads in relevant part, “to be absent, out of the body, and to be at home with the Lord.”

First, a true statement is SOMETHING is going away from the body, leaving the body behind here on earth. Paul cannot logically discuss the resurrection here because the resurrection isn’t to be “absent, out of the body” but the body IS resurrected whereas here Paul is saying away from the body.

Paul is discussing a state of affairs where he is away from the body and present with the Lord. Resurrection isn’t to be away from the “body” at all, but resurrection is to be with the “body” while the “body” is now incorruptible.

Second, something is away from the body AND to be present with the Lord. Something is leaving the body here and to be with the Lord.

It is to be here now in this body and absent from the Lord, contrasted with the desire to be “absent from the body”/“away from the body” and to be with the Lord. Paul doesn’t interject with a delay. Indeed, a delay is illogical here because Paul is taking about present sense, presently here in the body and presently away from the Lord, contrasted with “absent, out of the body and to be at home with the Lord” in a present sense. It is a contrast of two present senses of on earth in the body and away from the Lord contrasted with leaving the body and going to be with the Lord.

Paul expressed the same point elsewhere in Corinthians.

21For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know[v]which to choose. 23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;”

Now, Paul writes “to die is gain” but there isn’t any “gain” at death to write about if one proceeds immediately to separation from Jesus in a suspended state of existence called “soul sleep.”

Paul didn’t write, “To die is to gain, and what a magnificent gain it is, to go from existence on earth to a kind of nonexistence, a quasi nonexistence state of affairs from some amount of time away from Jesus! Oh what a gain! All together now let’s rejoice at such a gain!”

The “gain” is to leave the body and be with Christ.

William Lane Craig’s reading makes the most sense of verses 1-8 in Corinthians.

That which survives after death, William Lane Craig says is the “soul” as a “disembodied soul” or some say is our “spirit,” is what is to be clothed, and unclothed at death. Yet, something has to exist somewhere in some conscious state to be clothed or unclothed.

“For indeed, in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,3 since in fact after putting it on, we will not be found naked.”

“Death” cannot constitute as being “naked” unless, at death, something, the soul, spirit, whatever, has to exist somewhere outside/apart from/away from, the body to be “naked” to be “unclothed.” From this perspective, the soul is naked after death and conscious of course.

So, Craig opines that which is “naked” at death is a “conscious” and “disembodied soul” which also makes sense of and fits with what Paul wrote “absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”

The body is being left behind, “away from the body” and the body is later made incorruptible and unified with the conscious soul.

 

[NotreDame]

what the failed idea for immortal soul ( a term not found in the Bible) needed to have in vs 8 is
"to BE absent from the Body - IS TO BE - present with the Lord" -- which is the way it is often paraphrased when such a doctrine is needed.

Instead of that - the text actually says -
"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

which allows for the THREE states of humanity already discussed in the previous verses of 2 Cor 5 as you noted.
1. IN this decaying tent
2. Naked -- with no tent... no body
3. Clothed with the 1 Cor 15 immortal body given at the resurrection.

Not really.

Three points. The first is grammatical attention. The second, Paul is referring to an actual state of affairs of being “absent from the body and be at home with the Lord.” Third, Paul says leaving the body behind and going to be with Jesus, that is the state of affairs.

Paul uses three phrases linked by the conjunction “and.” The word “from” is very important.

“(1)we are of good courage and (2)prefer rather to be absent from the body and (3)
to be at home with the Lord.”

One literal Greek reads in relevant part, “to be absent, out of the body, and to be at home with the Lord.”

Paul is referring to a state of affairs that IS the case. After all, Paul says “we are of good courage” and Paul links that “good courage” to a preference of a state of affairs that IS the case of “absent the fromthe body and to be at home with the Lord.”
And there’s no room for your delay of being with the Lord in the verses. Paul is discussing death and going to be with Jesus. We know this from the context. “while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord…we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”

There’s no delay. It is to be here now and absent from the Lord or to be absent here, “absent from the body” and to be with the Lord.

Which also means the body is being left, “absent from the body.”

a true statement is SOMETHING is going away from the body, leaving the body behind here on earth. Paul cannot logically discuss the resurrection here because the resurrection isn’t to be “absent, out of the body” but the body IS resurrected whereas here Paul is saying away from the body.

Paul is discussing a state of affairs where he is away from the body and present with the Lord. Resurrection isn’t to be away from the “body” at all, but resurrection is to be with the “body” while the “body” is now incorruptible.

Paul is stating leaving the body behind and go to be with Jesus. After all, Paul said “absent from the body.” Paul is stating leaving the body and going to be with Jesus without his body as he has left his body to go and be with Jesus.

This idea of “absent from the body and to be home with the Lord” isn’t the only occasion Paul discusses dying and going to be with Jesus.

“21For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know[v]which to choose. 23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sakes.”

Paul is again expressing a desire for a state of affairs that IS the case of “depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better.”

Paul isn’t expressing an outcome that isn’t an outcome, that doesn’t happen, as this would not be “very much better.”

Unless of course Paul resigned himself to write irrationally, illogically, nonsensical, by a desire for an event, for an outcome, that doesn’t happen, that doesn’t exist that of “depart and be with Christ” as being “very much better.”

I “desire” to “depart” and “NOT be with Christ, for that is very much better” said and thought no Christian ever.

Paul is writing that to “depart and be with Christ” is a state of affairs that happens, that IS, hence his “desire” for it and said state of fairs is “very much better” than sticking around in the flesh.

It is to “depart” here and go to be with Jesus.

“Asleep” is a metaphor. “Asleep” means the body is in a state of rest and indeed the living fall “asleep” where their body rests but they aren’t dead. Asleep is referring to the body in a state of rest in a metaphorical manner. The body on earth “sleeps” although they are not dead. The body buried also “sleeps” as the body is “dead” but “asleep” doesn’t metaphorically denote absolute death.

Paul’s own words, and context, are not consistent with the idea no part, nothing, goes on to Jesus upon death.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

what the failed idea for immortal soul ( a term not found in the Bible) needed to have in vs 8 is
"to BE absent from the Body - IS TO BE - present with the Lord" -- which is the way it is often paraphrased when such a doctrine is needed.

Instead of that - the text actually says -
"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

which allows for the THREE states of humanity already discussed in the previous verses of 2 Cor 5 as you noted.
1. IN this decaying tent
2. Naked -- with no tent... no body
3. Clothed with the 1 Cor 15 immortal body given at the resurrection.

Not really.

yes... really

Three points. The first is grammatical attention. The second, Paul is referring to an actual state of affairs of being “absent from the body and be at home with the Lord.” Third, Paul says leaving the body behind and going to be with Jesus, that is the state of affairs.

Simply repeating what I said is not going to work as a support for "not really".

Paul uses three phrases linked by the conjunction “and.” The word “from” is very important.

“(1)we are of good courage and (2)prefer rather to be absent from the body and (3)
to be at home with the Lord.”

err umm.. "yeah" I keep emphasizing that in my comment above.

One literal Greek reads in relevant part, “to be absent, out of the body,

There is no "present out of the body" in the text. I think we both know that.

After all, Paul says “we are of good courage” and Paul links that “good courage” to a preference of a state of affairs that IS the case of “absent the fromthe body and to be at home with the Lord.”

Again that is "and to be" and not "IS to be".. It is two distinct things. Which is why in 2 Cor 5 Paul mentions that middle state of "unclothed" which is "not in the body and also not present with the Lord"

And there’s no room for your delay of being with the Lord in the verses

Until you notice that it is "and to be" rather than "is to be".. The whole reason for the middle state mentioned in 2 Cor 5 is to point forward to the desired one .

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.

(that is the middle state Paul does not want - but he says it is only resolved when we get the second body - the immortal one)​

4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life

In the previous letter - Paul tells us when that "swallowed up by life" event happens.

1 Cor 15: 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

The context for 2 Cor 5 is the instruction in 1 Cor 15 for getting our second body - the one 2 Cor 5:1-2 points us toward. The resurrection of the saints.

. Paul is discussing death and going to be with Jesus. We know this from the context. “while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord

Certainly both views agree with this part

…we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”

Two distinct things.

Paul cannot logically discuss the resurrection here because the resurrection isn’t to be “absent, out of the body”

Paul makes it clear that it IS absent from the body - the first body.

TWO bodies are in Paul's teaching both in 2 Cor 5 and in 1 Cor 15.

2 Cor 5: 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. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,

1 Cor 15:35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.


46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

but the body IS resurrected whereas here Paul is saying away from the body.

Away from this decaying tent -- but clothed with the second body mentioned in vs 1-2 and in 1 Cor 15 at the resurrection.

Paul is discussing a state of affairs where he is away from the body and present with the Lord.

Where being present with the Lord only happens when we have the 2nd body when "death is swallowed in victory" 1 Cor 15:54 - when when the mortal is "swallowed up by life" 2 Cor 5:4

Resurrection isn’t to be away from the “body” at all, but resurrection is to be with the “body” while the “body” is now incorruptible.

It is away from the first body - and it is IN the second one -- the immortal one. as 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5:1-4 show us.

Paul is stating leaving the body behind and go to be with Jesus. After all, Paul said “absent from the body.” Paul is stating leaving the body

agreed - the first body - the decaying tent in which we are housed. Paul says we groan longing to be clothed with the second house, the second body the immortal one.

 

[BobRyan]

This idea of “absent from the body and to be home with the Lord” isn’t the only occasion Paul discusses dying and going to be with Jesus.

“21For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know[v]which to choose. 23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sakes.”

Paul is again expressing a desire for a state of affairs that IS the case of “depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better.”

Agreed.

But in both cases one must depart this decaying tent - this mortal.

Paul isn’t expressing an outcome that isn’t an outcome, that doesn’t happen, as this would not be “very much better.”

Again there is no "is to be" in it. It is always AND - because it is two different events as 1 Cor 15:54 and 2 Cor 5:1-4 make so very clear

I “desire” to “depart” and “NOT be with Christ, for that is very much better” said and thought no Christian ever.

I applaud you for trying to embrace the opposing view to see if the shoe fits that case - but to do it you must state it accurately.

In the view that is not the one you prefer - there is zero time that elapses for the one who dies. They are immediately in their second body at the resurrection of the saints in 1 Thess 4:13-18. They know of no time laps at all - as seen from the perspective of the one who dies and is in what Paul calls the "unclothed" state in 2 Cor 5. For them it is an immediate resurrection at Christ's appearing in 1 Thess 4.

“Asleep” is a metaphor. “Asleep” means the body is in a state of rest

Not true.

Matt 10:28 makes it very clear - the body is killed it does not sleep because it is dead, returning to dust.

Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who KILL THE BODY but are unable to KILL the soul. Rather fear Him who is able to DESTROY BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell"

Your body sleeps every night - that is not death. But at the first death according to Christ in Matt 10:28 the body is killed. In Gen 3 it returns to dust. In Eccl 12 it returns to dust. It is the spirit that goes back to God and is dormant. The 'decaying tent" of 2 Cor 5 is not doing anything in death - it has fully decayed to dust. Dust is not "dormant" it is not "sleeping" the first body no longer exists at that point.

In John 11 Christ does not say "Lazarus' body sleeps I go that I may wake IT" - rather He says "our FRIEND Lazarus sleeps I go that I may wake HIM".

 

[BobRyan]

Mark Quayle said:
1 Samuel 28:6 says, "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets." I don't see, "God closed off all channels".

Hello, what other channels does God communicate by except dreams/visions and prophets...AND URIM? Urim was not a common means of communication among people, mainly the priesthood, so the fact that URIM is mentioned is pretty much a slammed door on the last means of communication.

Samuel was a prophet - God refused to answer Saul by prophets. Therefore, it was a demon impersonating Samuel, and those of us who know the truth will never be seduced by the "spirits of devils working miracles" that are coming upon the Earth to seduce everyone, including the immortal soul crowd, if they don't start stepping correct, my brother.

Scripture plainly says God refused to speak to Saul by prophets...therefore the thing speaking to Saul could not have been the prophet Samuel.

How much explicit, implicit, and circumstantial evidence do we need to pile on before we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that apparition could never have been the actual Samuel?

This is a very good point.

The text says "conjure up for me whomever I shall name"
The text says "by thy familiar spirit"
The text says Saul could not see Samuel only the witch could see him... only the servant of satan could see him.
The text says the witch and king saul claimed that witched and demons had that power over Samuel.. Should we concur?? Not when God called this deception and abomination.

Interesting that we have a case where the witch and her demon claim to have total control over the saints - to drag them up any time they wish and have the perform the service for which the demon and his witch has been contracted .. . and that they can do it at will. Even though as you point out God says this is total deception.

How odd that this is the "go to" example for someone wanting to show a reliable presentation of an OT saint such as Samuel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is a very good point.

The text says "conjure up for me whomever I shall name"
The text says "by thy familiar spirit"
The text says Saul could not see Samuel only the witch could see him... only the servant of satan could see him.
The text says the witch and king saul claimed that witched and demons had that power over Samuel.. Should we concur?? Not when God called this deception and abomination.

Interesting that we have a case where the witch and her demon claim to have total control over the saints - to drag them up any time they wish and have the perform the service for which the demon and his witch has been contracted .. . and that they can do it at will. Even though as you point out God says this is total deception.

How odd that this is the "go to" example for someone wanting to show a reliable presentation of an OT saint such as Samuel.

How odd that you would assume I wanted to use this as the "go to" example as "a reliable presentation of an OT saint such as Samuel." Almost appears you are jumping into the middle of an ongoing fight, yet there is no fight, because I just don't care.

You say, "The text says the witch and king saul claimed that witched and demons had that power over Samuel.." —where? (Not that it makes any difference as to whether it was Samuel or not, but I don't see that stated anywhere.)

 

[BobRyan]

How odd that you would assume I wanted to use this as the "go to" example as "a reliable presentation of an OT saint such as Samuel."

You are the one that goes to it in this post - #78

And of course -- from: #48

It was Samuel, but the how the dead spend their time is irrelevant. Grumpy Samuel may well have been brought by God for the purpose, regardless of where or, from our POV, 'when', he came from. God does not need the passage of time to put Samuel anywhere on the timeline he wants to.

Is that someone else doing that? Not you?

BTW is Samuel an "IT"? in that example --
Saul was ACTUALLY inquiring of a MEDIUM and that "IT" was speaking to him 1Chron 10:13 because he "made inquiry of IT"

You appear to suggest that God steps in on behalf of the witch and the demon to perform the deed that Saul asks of them. You don't answer how it is that as a medium, witch spiritist that is the "business she is in" (unless your claim is that God and the witch were partners in that business and that is why she asks "whom do you want me to bring up" as if she was about to do something for Saul)

1 Sam 28:8
8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. KJV

8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Please conduct a séance for me, and bring up for me the one I shall name to you.” NKJV

8 Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, “Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.” NASB 1955

OR are you bringing it up to show how the demons try to trick people into thinking they have power over the saints to haul them up on command - so then it is deception on their part?

, yet there is no fight, because I just don't care.

You say, "The text says the witch and king saul claimed that witched and demons had that power over Samuel.." —where? (Not that it makes any difference as to whether it was Samuel or not, but I don't see that stated anywhere.)

I find it a little odd that you don't think it matters as to whether witches and demons actually are in a position of power over dead saints to haul them up on command and cause them to provide whatever service is demanded ... or if it is pure deception and not actually a power that demons have over saints.

In any case - fine - what is it you "don't see" here?

1 Sam 28:8
8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. KJV

8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Please conduct a séance for me, and bring up for me the one I shall name to you.” NKJV

8 Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, “Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.” NASB 1955

11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”

Saul asks the witch about what she sees - because obviously Saul can't see it.

1 Sam 28:
7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.”
And his servants said to him, “In fact, there is a woman who is a medium at En Dor.”
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Please conduct a séance for me, and bring up for me the one I shall name to you.” 9 Then the woman said to him, “Look, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the spiritists
11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”
And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.”
13 And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?”
And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.”
14 So he said to her, “What is his form?”
And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle.”

10 Saul vowed to her by the Lord, saying, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid; but what do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.” (NASB 1955)

notice that in his dead spirit form - he is still old and still wrapped in his old robe.???

By contrast - when God brings OT saints from heaven "for real" in Matt 17 - the disciples don't need a demon or a witch in order to "see them" AND they appear 'in glory' having come down from heaven (rather than coming up from underground to fit a demon's "story" about what happens and who has control of them)

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are the one that goes to it in this post - #78

Is that someone else doing that? Not you?

OR are you bringing it up to show how the demons try to trick people into thinking they have power over the saints to haul them up on command - so then it is deception on their part?

You described, with claiming it was my 'go to' example, as though I thought it was the best or easiest proof of something —my first choice. That is what 'go to' means. My contention in this little side debate is not to prove that Samuel was Samuel, and not an evil spirit, but that nobody can know for sure that is was NOT Samuel.

I find it a little odd that you don't think it matters as to whether witches and demons actually are in a position of power over dead saints to haul them up on command and cause them to provide whatever service is demanded ... or if it is pure deception and not actually a power that demons have over saints.

In any case - fine - what is it you "don't see" here?

I find it a little odd that you would think that is what I meant by what I said. What I rather obviously meant is that whether it was actually Samuel or not is not a point critical to the main argument. Neither case proves or disproves whether the dead in Christ are 'immediately' taken resurrected into heaven to be with him.

 

[BobRyan]

You described, with claiming it was my 'go to' example, as though I thought it was the best or easiest proof of something —my first choice. That is what 'go to' means

I am thinking this is you bringing it in .

And of course -- from: #48

It was Samuel, but the how the dead spend their time is irrelevant. Grumpy Samuel may well have been brought by God for the purpose, regardless of where or, from our POV, 'when', he came from. God does not need the passage of time to put Samuel anywhere on the timeline he wants to.

. My contention in this little side debate is not to prove that Samuel was Samuel, and not an evil spirit, but that nobody can know for sure that is was NOT Samuel.

1. "The dead know nothing" Eccl 9:5 - would give them a clue it was not Samuel
2. God said He would not allow prophets to speak to Saul according to 1 Sam 28 and Samuel as one of them -- would give them a clue it was not Samuel
3. God calls IT an "IT" in 1Chron 10:13 because he "made inquiry of IT" - would give them a clue it was not Samuel
4. Saul says to do it by "conducting a seance for me" "by thy familiar spirit" -- - would give them a clue it was not Samuel
5. The witch and the demon appear to be the only ones who can actually see it -- -- - would give them a clue it was not Samuel
6. Most people know that demons and witches have no power to raise dead saints -- - -- - would give them a clue it was not Samuel
7. when God brings OT saints in for a discussion Matt 17 - the humans can all see them - as in Matt 17
8. When God brings Moses and Elijah from heaven they appear in glory - but when Satan fakes it - the demon appears in the form of an old man wearing his old clothes and only the witch can see him and instead of appearing in glory , coming from the glory of heaven - they "come up from under the ground" (to fit Satan's story)

There are sooo many clues here.

To your point though I do agree that if we ignored all these Bible details on the topic - at a certain distance from the Bible doctrine on this topic - there is such a thing as not being able to now that it was not Samuel. Because there is another narrative in which this fits perfectly as does purgatory and prayers to the dead etc. in that view – you can’t know for certain what this case is..

 

[BobRyan]

What I rather obviously meant is that whether it was actually Samuel or not is not a point critical to the main argument.

How so??

Neither case proves or disproves whether the dead in Christ are 'immediately' taken resurrected into heaven to be with him.

If it is a case of a fake - as seems to be the case when we looked at the "details" - then it says nothing at all about someone taken to heaven at death or not since it is just hand-puppets in the case of a fake. In that case it tells us nothing.

In the case that it is real - then we find out a lot about witches and demons having power over the dead saints - hauling them up from the earth at will - that was a complete surprise to the Bible reader until just then.

And of course there are no "immediately resurrected" texts in the Bible at all for what happens when someone dies - so not sure where that comes from.

John 11, 1 Cor 15 and 1Thess 4:13-18 and Rev 20:3-5 appear to negate any "immediately bodily resurrected when you die" ideas.