Is "soul sleep" a Scriptural doctrine?

[glorydaz]

You're trying to get me to come out and say so? Seriously? I'm saying what I've always said. Man is more than just a body of flesh. I know, and am fully persuaded that when I am absent from this body of flesh, I will be present with the Lord.



AH, I see. You're worried about those who may suffer in hell for all eternity. The opposite, of course is eternal life. AND, there is a judgment.

No, not quite correct Glory. The opposite of life is not suffering as you imply, but rather the absence of life.

Where did I imply that? I said you're worried about it.

Therefore, the opposite of eternal life is an eternal destruction to a state of non-life, not an eternal life of suffering or torment.

Not just soul sleep? I thought you claimed "non-life" was being without a body.

 

[Rosenritter]

I did recognize it, but you should be able to see Paul is talking about those who are not in the grave, but will be "changed" at the Lord's coming. The RESURRECTION refers to the body, but Paul then turns to the mystery of our being changed while still in the body.

Paul says that both those who die and any who are alive at Christ's return require this change. There's no exception one way or the other, and both are changed at the resurrection of the dead. The only difference being that those who haven't yet died don't have to be killed to meet a legalistic technicality.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 KJV
(42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
(43) It is sown in dishonour; 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.

Consider that Paul never speaks about the dead existing as ethereal souls or floating spirits: he rather says there is a natural body and a spiritual body. Whereas you keep saying "it's only our body" and that the dead must be in bliss already, Paul instead tells us that our only hope lies in our resurrection to a spiritual body.

Read the passage a little more closely please: the required change isn't a special case for those who have not fallen on sleep. He says "we shall not all sleep" but "we shall all be changed" and in this case "all" means "all" of the saints, whether dead or still standing at the end.

1 Corinthians 15:50-52 KJV
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
(51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

I'm pretty sure I was referring to Paul's teaching...not what Jesus said Himself, nor was I "reciting what other people have said". I was simply trying to explain to you what Paul was saying in that portion of Romans 8. Paul refers to the same thing many many times. Here's just one example. Point of fact - Jesus could not be without sin unless He kept the law.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.​

No disagreement so far.

Really? So, do you think if Jesus hadn't kept the law perfectly, it wouldn't have mattered? I'd be interested to hear how that would work out.

That's a tangent which has the potential to be misunderstood. If God chooses to break the law, is he really breaking the law when He defines the law to begin with, and has the power to revoke or create law as He wishes? If sin is against God, how can God sin against God? I suspect that this hypothetical line of thought might not be truly productive. It reminds me of that question "Did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins" that can have entirely different answers (both yes and no) depending on the assumed framework.

Regardless, I do not object that Jesus obeyed the law in perfection, nor do I object that is an essential element for the Passover Lamb that must be without spot or blemish. God chose that metaphor and he continued in it, it is understandable and leads us to salvation, and I don't need to question His method.

However, I don't think it is accurate (or does Him justice) to say that was his purpose in coming to earth. I think it is more accurate to say that it was a means by which He used to bring the gospel to us, and even more accurate to say that his purpose was in bringing the gospel, that we might have life and have it more abundantly, to heal the bruised, make the blind to see, for the salvation of our souls unto eternal life. Hopefully you understand my meaning here.

I'll have to deal with the remainder of your post separately. This one is too long already.

+1 for demonstrating self control by keeping the post concise. It's a skill that I would do well to work on.

 

[Rosenritter]

Therefore, the opposite of eternal life is an eternal destruction to a state of non-life, not an eternal life of suffering or torment.

Not just soul sleep? I thought you claimed "non-life" was being without a body.

When we say someone is asleep or has fallen on sleep, it implies that they shall wake. Death it is, and that death might even have been specifically received as as punishment from either God or man, but if they are going to rise again, it's not an eternal punishment. If it was eternal they would stay dead.

When we say that the wicked shall be destroyed or be burnt up, it implies that they are completely consumed and that this isn't something that they can heal or that they may simply wake. If God delivers death as a punishment in the Judgment, it is an eternal punishment because there's no coming back from that second death. If they were to ever come back to life then it wouldn't be very eternal, would it?

1. Those who are asleep and those who are destroyed by eternal punishment are both dead.
2. We can say that those who are dead are not alive (non-life) and likewise they lack a body (either physical or spiritual) to support existence.

Whether you yet agree or no, I am being entirely consistent. When God raises the dead in the judgment they are raised with a body regardless of whether they were burnt to ashes, eaten by fishes, or consumed by worms. If God destroys the wicked in the judgment they are completely destroyed, body and soul, reduced to ashes, and shall be no more. In both cases, the dead have no awareness or being.

So no, we could not say that the opposite of eternal life is sleep. Sleep is a temporary state of not-being, and they shall yet live. This would be non-life, but it is a temporary non-life, not an eternal non-life.

So yes, if our body is destroyed and burnt up to ashes, we cannot be said to be alive, we cannot be said to have any being, let alone thought or awareness. That could also be called non-life, but it is an eternal non-life, not a temporary punishment.

 

[glorydaz]

Regardless, I do not object that Jesus obeyed the law in perfection, nor do I object that is an essential element for the Passover Lamb that must be without spot or blemish. God chose that metaphor and he continued in it, it is understandable and leads us to salvation, and I don't need to question His method.

However, I don't think it is accurate (or does Him justice) to say that was his purpose in coming to earth. I think it is more accurate to say that it was a means by which He used to bring the gospel to us, and even more accurate to say that his purpose was in bringing the gospel, that we might have life and have it more abundantly, to heal the bruised, make the blind to see, for the salvation of our souls unto eternal life. Hopefully you understand my meaning here.

Well let's see...I'm looking and I can't see where I said anything about it being the purpose of His coming to earth. Rather, I was referring to the verse and the importance of His obedience to the law. None of that list of yours could be accomplished without it.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Jesus came to obey the law perfectly in the flesh. That the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us......who walk not after the flesh. We don't have to leave this world to have that accomplished in us.

+1 for demonstrating self control by keeping the post concise. It's a skill that I would do well to work on.

Rather +1 for you for finally recognizing my self control.

And we might get farther if you would stop making these off base assumptions concerning what I've said.

 

[glorydaz]

We have no disagreement in that we must receive Christ in faith unto his blood for salvation. The point is that under your definition of the "full penalty of sin" Christ did not pay the full penalty. Under my understanding "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6:23 he did pay the full penalty in his blood.

Maybe you should remind me of my definition of what the "full penalty of sin" is. I don't recall saying what that might be. Since you're the one who keeps using the term, maybe you should tell me your definition as well.

All of that has no bearing on the point in question: did Jesus die on the cross for our transgressions to pay the full penalty of our transgressions, or does it say that he was tormented after the cross for an eternity to bear the full penalty of our sin? Are the wages for sin death? Or an eternal life in torment? What does the scripture actually say Glory?

Try not be condescending. I hate having to exercise my self control.

Scripture says a lot of things.

Jesus had no sin of His own. That God accepted His sacrifice for sin addresses the enmity between God and man. For some reason, you seem to think that means unbelievers will not face judgment and sentencing, when in fact it means that man can now turn to God and be reconciled.

How did we drift here? Because your presumption that man does not ever really die also bears with it the problem (even besides others) that God becomes the agent of the preservation of all evil for eternity. But if death is truly death, then the resurrection has meaning, and when he says he will destroy the wicked and all things will be made new it also means that this will be fulfilled most literally.

No, we drifted here because you are so anxious to prove that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are dead. You say that because you can't see them in the flesh. In the same way you claim Moses and Elijah were not actually on the Mount with Jesus.

 

[Rosenritter]

Well let's see...I'm looking and I can't see where I said anything about it being the purpose of His coming to earth. Rather, I was referring to the verse and the importance of His obedience to the law. None of that list of yours could be accomplished without it.

I was responding from here (the link should work):

Changed? What do you mean by "changed"? If you mean what Paul does here, then I'd agree with you. I don't think that's what you mean, though, is it?

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Jesus came to obey the law perfectly in the flesh. That the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us......who walk not after the flesh. We don't have to leave this world to have that accomplished in us.

Wouldn't "Jesus came to ..." mean the same as "the purpose of His coming to earth?"

Jesus = His (Jesus's), came = coming to earth, to = purpose

 

[Rosenritter]

Maybe you should remind me of my definition of what the "full penalty of sin" is. I don't recall saying what that might be. Since you're the one who keeps using the term, maybe you should tell me your definition as well.

You're trying to get me to come out and say so? Seriously? I'm saying what I've always said. Man is more than just a body of flesh. I know, and am fully persuaded that when I am absent from this body of flesh, I will be present with the Lord.

AH, I see. You're worried about those who may suffer in hell for all eternity. The opposite, of course is eternal life. AND, there is a judgment

When I ask a couple times for you to give your definition and you reply that "I'm saying what I've always said" ... and then confirm that you understand that we are speaking of "suffering in hell for all eternity" I think that you have provided the definition. If you would like to take an opportunity to give a more specific statement then please do so.

You haven't exactly made it a secret that you consider "suffering in hell for all eternity" to be the penalty for sin. Jesus didn't suffer in hell for all eternity. It says that he paid the penalty for our sins on the cross, not after the cross, and he wasn't suffering for an eternity. If the penalty of sin is death, it is paid. If it is suffering for an eternity, then Jesus didn't pay that price.

 

[glorydaz]

I was responding from here (the link should work):



Wouldn't "Jesus came to ..." mean the same as "the purpose of His coming to earth?"

Jesus = His (Jesus's), came = coming to earth, to = purpose

No, and it might help if you took the time to check the context.
For the third time, I was speaking in reference to Romans 8:3-4.


If I said He came to die, that certainly isn't the only thing He came to do. If I said He came so that we could have life. That certainly isn't the only thing He came to do. It would be a bit presumptuous to claim there was one single purpose for which Christ came...yet you want to insist I have done so.

Even you gave more than one reason He came back. Are you saying I'm not allowed to give one of the reasons? Don't you think it's a bit nit picky of you? I do.

 

[Rosenritter]

Scripture says a lot of things.

Jesus had no sin of His own. That God accepted His sacrifice for sin addresses the enmity between God and man. For some reason, you seem to think that means unbelievers will not face judgment and sentencing, when in fact it means that man can now turn to God and be reconciled.

Where have I ever said anything resembling "unbelievers will not face judgment and sentencing?" Do you have a quote?

No, we drifted here because you are so anxious to prove that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are dead. You say that because you can't see them in the flesh. In the same way you claim Moses and Elijah were not actually on the Mount with Jesus.

1. If Abraham Isaac and Jacob weren't dead but rather alive in some form, Jesus wouldn't have been able to use them as a proof that they would live again. We've been over this already. The Saduccees were mocking the resurrection, Jesus answered their initial question, and then used one more statement to prove the resurrection. Your interpretation would have Jesus failing to accomplish his proof.

2. Jesus himself told his disciples that they had seen a vision. Matt 17:9 "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying Tell the vision to no man..." You'll have to argue against Matthew or Jesus if you want to maintain that it was something other than a vision.

Nor would Paul's statement that we of all men are "most miserable" if there be no resurrection from the dead make any sense at all, if the dead in Christ are alive in happiness. "Alive in happiness" is not the same as "most miserable." When the scripture always presents the resurrection as something glorious and blessed and the hope of the Christian believer (without which we would have no hope) how can you regulate such to a inferior importance? It would seem that you don't think that is sufficient.

So while you may want to maintain your own opinion and think it a comfort that the dead are in heaven, Paul (nor anyone else in scripture) ever thought to comfort anyone with that doctrine. In exchange for that perceived comfort you now have God as the Preserver of all Evil and inflicting more malicious harm than any devil could be capable of. Is that really a good exchange?

There's additional side effects to that doctrine as well. People that recognize the inconsistency between "love thy enemies" so that we might "be perfect" "even as your Father in heaven is perfect" rightly don't recognize a God of Infinite Torture as good. They perceive the gospel as an inconsistent fraud and want nothing to do with cultist nonsense. Sometimes this gives rise to Universalism theories (which are dangerous in that they tell the wicked that they shall not die) but the more usual effect is that those who need Christ are caused to stumble at that false teaching.

Luke 17:1-2 KJV
(1) Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
(2) It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Can you argue that "never ending suffering in hell" accomplishes some sort of redemptive purpose? By definition, there is no redemption from an eternal punishment. What possible purpose would there be in Preserving Evil for Eternity except that which we call sadism, which goes against our definition of the character of God and Christ? Would you even considering marrying someone who always kept a couple people in a basement for the purpose of torture? Would you be happy as his bride? Yet this is what is effectively preached by those who insist that the dead do not die. That's the impression people get of Christianity, in a world that we need to save.

That is why we drifted here.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, and it might help if you took the time to check the context.
For the third time, I was speaking in reference to Romans 8:3-4.

If I said He came to die, that certainly isn't the only thing He came to do. If I said He came so that we could have life. That certainly isn't the only thing He came to do. It would be a bit presumptuous to claim there was one single purpose for which Christ came...yet you want to insist I have done so.

Even you gave more than one reason He came back. Are you saying I'm not allowed to give one of the reasons? Don't you think it's a bit nit picky of you? I do.

Sorry if that seemed nit-picky. I think I've heard that phrase used a few times with a wrong intent. and as such I might have been sensitive to confirm that his purpose was more reaching than that. I'm good with your "He came so that we could have life" statement above. I don't think we disagree here, thanks for the explanation.

 

[glorydaz]

When I ask a couple times for you to give your definition and you reply that "I'm saying what I've always said" ... and then confirm that you understand that we are speaking of "suffering in hell for all eternity" I think that you have provided the definition. If you would like to take an opportunity to give a more specific statement then please do so.

Naughty. :nono: Here is what I said.

Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
You're trying to get me to come out and say so? Seriously? I'm saying what I've always said. Man is more than just a body of flesh. I know, and am fully persuaded that when I am absent from this body of flesh, I will be present with the Lord.

Then I added, "AH, I see. You're worried about those who may suffer in hell for all eternity. The opposite, of course is eternal life. AND, there is a judgment". NOT my opinion of hell, but a comment concerning what you seem to be worried about.

You haven't exactly made it a secret that you consider "suffering in hell for all eternity" to be the penalty for sin.

NO. Once again you jump to conclusions. The last thread on this, I made a point of saying I didn't know for sure if it was eternal separation or hell fire. I engaged in the topic because of all the asides you bring up...like Moses and Elijah being nothing but visions and Luke 16 etc. As you have done in this thread, you clump several topics into one. I know for a fact I have not taken a stand on eternal torment, so that's just an error on your part.

Jesus didn't suffer in hell for all eternity. It says that he paid the penalty for our sins on the cross, not after the cross, and he wasn't suffering for an eternity. If the penalty of sin is death, it is paid. If it is suffering for an eternity, then Jesus didn't pay that price.

Sounds simple, doesn't it?

 

[glorydaz]

Where have I ever said anything resembling "unbelievers will not face judgment and sentencing?" Do you have a quote?

Notice how I was careful to say "you seem to think"? No quote required with that statement.

 

[glorydaz]

1. If Abraham Isaac and Jacob weren't dead but rather alive in some form, Jesus wouldn't have been able to use them as a proof that they would live again. We've been over this already. The Saduccees were mocking the resurrection, Jesus answered their initial question, and then used one more statement to prove the resurrection. Your interpretation would have Jesus failing to accomplish his proof.

No, His quote from Exodus was proof that they were alive then and are still alive. Just because you and the Sadducees can't see them doesn't mean they are not alive. The after life includes all the time after we put off this body of flesh. Just as Paul says, to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord.

2. Jesus himself told his disciples that they had seen a vision. Matt 17:9 "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying Tell the vision to no man..." You'll have to argue against Matthew or Jesus if you want to maintain that it was something other than a vision.

And Paul told how he had seen a vision...which was the risen Lord. Are you claiming visions are figments of someone's imagination rather than a being from the spiritual realm? Are you denying Paul saw the Risen Lord and referred to Him as a VISION?

Acts 26:12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. 19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:​

Notice how angels are called "visions". Don't you believe in angels?

Luke 24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.​

If you deny the existence of Moses and Elijah on the Mount, then you must deny the existence of the Lord (vision) and angels (visions). You can't pick and choose.

 

[Rosenritter]

NO. Once again you jump to conclusions. The last thread on this, I made a point of saying I didn't know for sure if it was eternal separation or hell fire. I engaged in the topic because of all the asides you bring up...like Moses and Elijah being nothing but visions and Luke 16 etc. As you have done in this thread, you clump several topics into one. I know for a fact I have not taken a stand on eternal torment, so that's just an error on your part.

I was asking you to make a statement. I don't think I can be faulted for interpreting what you said. Regardless, thank you for the clarification... although if I understand you correctly, your clarification is that you aren't entirely clear on the answer. I at least respect that you're willing to say aren't sure.

You may be seeing this as a separate topic, but for me it's more like the other side of the proverbial coin. If the wages of sin is death, our understanding of this simple concept is complicated (or skewed) greatly if death is redefined to mean life.

"Eternal separation from God" isn't a biblical term, but I can technically agree with that phrase because you cannot have greater separation than utter destruction by fire so that the wicked are no more. There is no greater means of separation from God than to be wiped out of existence... also called the second death.

"Hell fire" is a biblical term, and it is also a phrase with which I am in full agreement, when it is applied in biblical context. We are told that "hell fire" destroys body and soul, and other descriptions speak in terms of melting the fat of lambs, being consumed, reduced to ashes beneath the feet of the righteous, and so forth. Hell fire will destroy both fallen angel and the unrepentant wicked alike. Being consumed by fire leaves no remnant that might possibly heal or regenerate.... that is, death.

So I don't need to choose only one or the other of those two phrases (they both apply.) But neither do I need to create explanations (like some have) that the righteous will be overjoyed to witness the wicked in perpetual torment, or that this somehow this never ending spectacle would glorify God. The destruction of the wicked in hell fire will remove them from existence, which also harmonizes with the future of the age to come where we are told "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4).

From my experience, what usually seems to hold people to "never ending torment" or "never ending separation and angst" is a flawed tradition that teaches that the bible doesn't mean "death" when it says "death" -- that rather those who are dead are actually alive in some other realm. The fallout from that teaching results in the mess and confusion that either has people and churches unwilling to talk about the subject, or belligerent folk that loudly proclaim "eternal conscious torment" as threats if people won't believe them, even seeming to derive a type of glee from the possibility.

If the dead are truly dead before the resurrection, then the second death is also a true death without any possibility of resurrection. But if the dead are not dead then all the promises of eternal punishment by fire take on a totally different horrific meaning of impossible proportions. That's why these topics are not really separable.

 

[Rosenritter]

Notice how I was careful to say "you seem to think"? No quote required with that statement.

Then please explain why you would even think such a thing concerning me (no quote required.) I am vocal concerning death, judgment, and the resurrection and I certainly don't conceal my views in this regard. "Unbelievers will not face judgment and sentencing?" I am one of the more outspoken advocates of Annihilation on these forums, that the wicked will "burn up" and "be no more." How does that bypass judgment and sentencing?

Acts 24:14-16 KJV
(14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
(15) And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
(16) And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.


I promise not to be upset if you try to tell me why you had such an impression of me.

 

[glorydaz]

I was asking you to make a statement. I don't think I can be faulted for interpreting what you said. Regardless, thank you for the clarification... although if I understand you correctly, your clarification is that you aren't entirely clear on the answer. I at least respect that you're willing to say aren't sure.

Well, you can be faulted for claiming I've said what I haven't. The fact is that I see Scripture that supports both ideas. I can argue both sides of that particular issue.

You may be seeing this as a separate topic, but for me it's more like the other side of the proverbial coin. If the wages of sin is death, our understanding of this simple concept is complicated (or skewed) greatly if death is redefined to mean life.

It's not at all complicated when one understands that death of our body is not death of our soul and spirit.

"Eternal separation from God" isn't a biblical term,

Close enough for me...

2 Thessalonians 1:9
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;​

So I don't need to choose only one or the other of those two phrases (they both apply.) But neither do I need to create explanations (like some have) that the righteous will be overjoyed to witness the wicked in perpetual torment, or that this somehow this never ending spectacle would glorify God. The destruction of the wicked in hell fire will remove them from existence, which also harmonizes with the future of the age to come where we are told "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4).

I believe you're overthinking it. Stick to what the Bible actually says.

It wouldn't be such a mystery for you if you understood that man is more than just a body of flesh. If you begin by accepting that basic premise, you might see more than you do now.

 

[glorydaz]

Then please explain why you would even think such a thing concerning me (no quote required.) I am vocal concerning death, judgment, and the resurrection and I certainly don't conceal my views in this regard. "Unbelievers will not face judgment and sentencing?" I am one of the more outspoken advocates of Annihilation on these forums, that the wicked will "burn up" and "be no more." How does that bypass judgment and sentencing?

Acts 24:14-16 KJV
(14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
(15) And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
(16) And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.


I promise not to be upset if you try to tell me why you had such an impression of me.

Okay, if you insist. I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. Now you know how it feels.

And isn't that the best way we can learn something? To reap what we sow?

 

[Rosenritter]

No, His quote from Exodus was proof that they were alive then and are still alive. Just because you and the Sadducees can't see them doesn't mean they are not alive. The after life includes all the time after we put off this body of flesh.

The problem with your statement is that Jesus said he was proving the resurrection of the dead, not a ghostly state of existence before the resurrection. That's a stubborn fact you've been unable to get around.

Just as Paul says, to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord.

Which is also perfectly compatible with the biblical statements that the dead have no being, thoughts, or knowledge even that they are dead. One event is a prerequisite before the second may be accomplished, that is a list of a sequence, not an equivalence.

And Paul told how he had seen a vision...which was the risen Lord. Are you claiming visions are figments of someone's imagination rather than a being from the spiritual realm? Are you denying Paul saw the Risen Lord and referred to Him as a VISION?

First, a heavenly (legitimate) dream or vision is not a figment of one's own imagination, though I allow that a false vision could simply be imagination. From here on I will simply say "vision" and assume you know I am speaking of a legitimate vision.

Second, the conveyance of visions are well known for containing symbolic or metaphorical elements that can be misunderstood. When God speaks plainly in a vision, those are words that we can trust. But when God has other elements within the vision, those are seldom literal and sometimes defy immediate interpretation.

Do I need to bring up some examples to demonstrate this? Pharaoh's vision of the thin kine and the fat kine? (Genesis 41) Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the statue with the head of gold and feet of mixed of iron and clay? (Daniel 2). Peter's vision of the unclean animals in the sheet? (Acts 10). John's vision of four horsemen and beasts and dragons with seven heads and a woman in the wilderness? (Revelation).

Notice how angels are called "visions". Don't you believe in angels?

Luke 24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.​

​

Granted that the word "vision" can also mean "appearance. But in most of the biblical cases visions are in the form of dreams containing images. Even if a vision contains images of angels, this would not require actual angels to participate. God can create visions without requiring live actors.

If you deny the existence of Moses and Elijah on the Mount, then you must deny the existence of the Lord (vision) and angels (visions). You can't pick and choose.

I can say that the disciples that were with Jesus that day saw a vision that contained elements that represented Moses and Elijah. This is stated in the gospel, just as surely as Jesus explained that what his disciples was a vision. Clearly they didn't understand the meaning of the vision, as their initial suggestion was that they should build three tabernacles.

Besides this, your suggestion that this vision of Elijah was the real Elijah is countered by Christ's own explanation just a few verses later in Matthew:

Matthew 17:9-13 KJV
(9) And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
(10) And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
(11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
(12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
(13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

If they had actually seen Elijah (not merely a symbolic element of vision) then doesn't this answer seem a little strange? Shouldn't he have said, "Elias has come already, did you not see clearly with your own eyes?" rather than telling them that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the saying that Elias would first come before the Messiah?

Not only that, but when they were told that it was a vision, why would the disciples have asked "Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come" if they understood that the "vision' was real and Elias had just come? Clearly they understood that they hadn't seen the REAL Elijah or else they wouldn't have asked that question.

 

[Rosenritter]

Close enough for me...

2 Thessalonians 1:9
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;​

​

It says the destruction is everlasting destruction from his presence, not everlasting banishment away from his presence. So couldn't that mean that the power of his presence destroys them?

I believe you're overthinking it. Stick to what the Bible actually says.

The bible does say that the world to come has no more death, pain, or sorrow. That's not overthinking it, that's sticking to what the bible says. It actually says that the former things are passed away (not that they are preserved for ever.) It says that in more than a few ways throughout scripture, but here's one of them:

Revelation 21:4 KJV
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

It wouldn't be such a mystery for you if you understood that man is more than just a body of flesh. If you begin by accepting that basic premise, you might see more than you do now.

If one starts with scripture, and continues through scripture, and allows scripture to interpret scripture, one doesn't reach such a conclusion. I don't start reading Genesis with the presumption that God didn't understand his own creation or that he misinformed Adam.

Again, since you said "stick to what the bible actually says" and "you're overthinking it" I'll remind you that I'm the one taking the Bible simply in its literal sense. You're the one who criticizes me for not reading more into the passage than what it says.