Do We Sleeping Until Judgement

[Saint Steven]

The New Testament is based on the Law & the Prophets, not the other way around, therefore the New Testament must be interpreted through the Law & the Prophets.

The Messiah and Apostles taught from the Law & the Prophets, not the New Testament.

Reminds me of this.

1 Timothy 1:7-11
They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

 

[Der Alte]

All the verses you quote above have already been discussed in this thread. I think it's been shown that none of them mean that we are conscious between death and resurection.

I haven't read all your posts in this thread but arguing that a verse/passage has a figurative meaning is not the same as conclusively demonstrating that it is in fact figurative.

This hasn't been discussed in this thread before as far as I remember. But the genre of Revelation (apocalypse) means that you can't form literal conclusions about anything from what is written in Revelation.

So what do we do with Revelation, just ignore it? Or flip a coin to decide which of many "correct interpretations" we are going to accept? There is an old maxim about interpreting the Bible, "If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense." I find that most heterodox religious groups tend to find figurative meanings which just happens to support their particular doctrines.
.....As I stated earlier in this thread the Jews believed that Isaiah 14:9-11 was factual. Strange that native Hebrew speaking Jews somehow got it wrong but some denominations with little to no knowledge of the Biblical languages 2700 years +/- later somehow got it right.

Jewish-Encyclopedia-Gehenna
When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10).
GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

 

[greenguzzi]

arguing that a verse/passage has a figurative meaning is not the same as conclusively demonstrating that it is in fact figurative.

I never argued (or even wrote) that it was figurative, I said it was apocalyptic.
That's easy to demonstrate, it's in the name: Revelation = apokalupsis (ἀποκάλυψις) = apocalyptic.

So what do we do with Revelation, just ignore it?

Nope, you read it as apocalyptic literature. Which is what it is.
When I tell you that the book of Psalms is a poetry, you don't ask "what do we do with Psalms, just ignore it?" No, you read it as poetry. Psalms is full of truth, but you can't treat it as you would an historical book like Acts.

Likewise, there are certain things you can't do with apocalyptic literature that you can do with historic literature. One of the things you can't do with apocalyptic literature is make literal inferences from it. But that doesn't mean it's not useful, or that it should be ignored.

"If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense."

Cute wordplay, but bad advice. That's not exegesis, it's too easy for ones own prejudices to be reinforced with that approach.

Many theological errors come from not understanding the genre of what is being read.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<GG>I never argued (or even wrote) that it was figurative, I said it was apocalyptic.
That's easy to demonstrate, it's in the name: Revelation = apokalupsis (ἀποκάλυψις) = apocalyptic.
Nope, you read it as apocalyptic literature. Which is what it is.
When I tell you that the book of Psalms is a poetry, you don't ask "what do we do with Psalms, just ignore it?" No, you
Likewise, there are certain things you can't do with apocalyptic literature that you can do with historic literature. One of the things you can't do with apocalyptic literature is make literal inferences from it. But that doesn't mean it's not useful, or that it should be ignored.
Cute wordplay, but bad advice. That's not exegesis, it's too easy for ones own prejudices to be reinforced with that approach.
Many theological errors come from not understanding the genre of what is being read.<GG>

end

ἀποκάλυψις apokalupsis ap-ok-al'-oop-sis
From G601; disclosure: - appearing, coming, lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.​

How does this definition fit with your understanding of "apocalyptic literature?" I thank you for your advice on Bible interpretation but I studied at the graduate level and I don't think I'm going to go off and follow any anonymous posters online. Before you accuse someone of following their "own prejudices" you might want to examine your own prejudices. Rejecting the maxim I quoted based on your own biases and presuppositions doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in what you are saying.
....."If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense." As I said before to do otherwise leaves the door wide open for any heterodox group to interpret scripture "figuratively" to make it fit their particular doctrine. That's where the "theological errors" creep in.

 

[Saint Steven]

…

ἀποκάλυψις apokalupsis ap-ok-al'-oop-sis ...​

How do you get your Greek font to show up in your posts?

 

[Der Alte]

How do you get your Greek font to show up in your posts?

Copy/paste from my Bible program E-Sword it's free and has about 30 Bible versions including Hebrew and Greek or copy/paste from MS word which has the fonts.

 

[Dkh587]

Reminds me of this.

1 Timothy 1:7-11
They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

In what way?

 

[Saint Steven]

In what way?

You said:

The Messiah and Apostles taught from the Law & the Prophets

But what did they teach about it? (the Law & the Prophets)

 

[Dkh587]

You said:

But what did they teach about it? (the Law & the Prophets)

They taught from the Law & the Prophets, and upheld them. What’s your point?

 

[Saint Steven]

They taught from the Law & the Prophets, and upheld them. What’s your point?

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the book of Galatians? Upheld the law?

Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

 

[Dkh587]

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the book of Galatians? Upheld the law?

Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Yes, they upheld the law, and Paul even taught that through faith we uphold the law:

Romans 3:31 CSB

Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the Law.

And yes, i’m Very familiar with the book of Galatians. I’m also very familiar with how it’s often used to teach against obedience to the law of God.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, they upheld the law, and Paul even taught that through faith we uphold the law:

Romans 3:31 CSB


Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the Law.

And yes, i’m Very familiar with the book of Galatians. I’m also very familiar with how it’s often used to teach against obedience to the law of God.

Right. Like this one. Used quite often.

Romans 3:21
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

--- EDIT ---

Oops, wrong book. I meant this one.

Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

 

[greenguzzi]

How does this definition fit with your understanding of "apocalyptic literature?"

It's not my understanding, it's that of many (if not most) mainstream Bible scholars. It's not hard to find lots of writings on the subject: Scholarly papers, commentaries, etc..

I have the privilege of having one of Australia's leading Bible scholars (baptist) as a fellow parishioner. Obviously that doesn't help you, but it helps me to keep my ideas mostly mainstream. I know my "soul sleep" belief isn't really mainstream these days, but I'm yet to be convinced otherwise. My scholar friend isn't bothered by my slight diversion. He says it's not a particularly important doctrine. I agree, but I find it fun to discuss anyway.

I thank you for your advice on Bible interpretation but I studied at the graduate level

Ah, in that case you would know about the genre of Revelation then! I guess you were just testing me, which is fine.

I reckon you missed an opportunity here though. There are subtleties regarding the genre of Revelation that actually counter my genre argument against making literal conclusions. I was just this moment reminded of it when replying to your post. I might later post a correction to what I wrote.

I don't think I'm going to go off and follow any anonymous posters online.

Um, I never asked you to follow anyone. I thought this was just a friendly discussion about a minor point of doctrine. Even though I'm not yet convinced by any argument for particular judgment (or any of its variants), I have learnt a lot by investigating the ideas of those who disagree with me.

Before you accuse someone of following their "own prejudices"

I'm not sure what's going on here. But this is the third time when I've written one thing, and your reaction has been to something different. Maybe I need to write clearer or more concisely.
I never accused you - or anyone - of following their own prejudices. I said that it's too easy for one's own prejudices to be reinforced with such an approach. It wasn't a criticism or judgment of you. I was questioning David L Cooper's advice that you quoted.

...you might want to examine your own prejudices.

I do, often. It's a difficult thing for anyone to do, but it's something I take very seriously, and am committed to do.

"If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense." As I said before to do otherwise leaves the door wide open for any heterodox group to interpret scripture "figuratively" to make it fit their particular doctrine.

Hmmm, this seems at odds with what you said about having studied Bible interpretation. Maybe I'm missing something.
Here's my thoughts on that maxim, maybe you can show me where I've misunderstood the concept behind it:

The plain sense makes good sense... seems to me to be a one-size-fits-all hermeneutic. Which reminds me of another maxim:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
And that's what first concerns me about Dr Cooper's golden rule. It's too simple, quite convincing, and too convenient.
Another problem with it is that there are plenty of examples where scripture itself shows that the "plain sense" understanding isn't the correct or only sense. Think parables, think prophecies.
Doesn't 1 Corinthians 2:13 - 14 speak against using "plain sense", instead teaching that we should use a spiritual sense?
Also, idioms don't translate well. Idioms can be very easily misunderstood. If the plain sense makes sense to you, then you will stop there and completely miss the idiom, and therefore miss the meaning of the passage of scripture. The same applies to other things we find in scripture: Metaphor, allegory, types, hyperbole, prophetic imagery, and finally apocalyptic imagery. All these will be missed if we apply Dr Cooper's rule.

The first part of the maxim is fine: It's good to determine the "plain sense" meaning of a passage. But that's just the beginning. Unfortunately the second part of the maxim puts a stop to any further investigation, and may result in a wrong understanding of the scripture.

I honestly reckon that Dr Cooper's golden rule could seriously hinder good exegesis. Which is why I spoke out when I saw you quote it.

We need more than just a hammer in our hermeneutic toolbox.

 

[Dkh587]

Right. Like this one. Used quite often.

Romans 3:21
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

--- EDIT ---

Oops, wrong book. I meant this one.

Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

We weren’t discussing how to attain righteousness. We were discussing Christ and the Aposes teaching out of the Law & the Prophets. Galatians is irrelevant to what we were talking about.

My original point is that the NT must be understood through the teachings of the Law & Prophets, and not the other way around.

 

[Saint Steven]

My original point is that the NT must be understood through the teachings of the Law & Prophets, and not the other way around.

I am in 180 degree opposition to that idea.

 

[Der Alte]

It's not my understanding, it's that of many (if not most) mainstream Bible scholars. It's not hard to find lots of writings on the subject: Scholarly papers, commentaries, etc..
I have the privilege of having one of Australia's leading Bible scholars (baptist) as a fellow parishioner. Obviously that doesn't help you, but it helps me to keep my ideas mostly mainstream. I know my "soul sleep" belief isn't really mainstream these days, but I'm yet to be convinced otherwise. My scholar friend isn't bothered by my slight diversion. He says it's not a particularly important doctrine. I agree, but I find it fun to discuss anyway.
Ah, in that case you would know about the genre of Revelation then! I guess you were just testing me, which is fine.
I reckon you missed an opportunity here though. There are subtleties regarding the genre of Revelation that actually counter my genre argument against making literal conclusions. I was just this moment reminded of it when replying to your post. I might later post a correction to what I wrote.
Um, I never asked you to follow anyone. I thought this was just a friendly discussion about a minor point of doctrine. Even though I'm not yet convinced by any argument for particular judgment (or any of its variants), I have learnt a lot by investigating the ideas of those who disagree with me.
I'm not sure what's going on here. But this is the third time when I've written one thing, and your reaction has been to something different. Maybe I need to write clearer or more concisely.
I never accused you - or anyone - of following their own prejudices. I said that it's too easy for one's own prejudices to be reinforced with such an approach. It wasn't a criticism or judgment of you. I was questioning David L Cooper's advice that you quoted.
I do, often. It's a difficult thing for anyone to do, but it's something I take very seriously, and am committed to do.
Hmmm, this seems at odds with what you said about having studied Bible interpretation. Maybe I'm missing something.
Here's my thoughts on that maxim, maybe you can show me where I've misunderstood the concept behind it:
The plain sense makes good sense... seems to me to be a one-size-fits-all hermeneutic. Which reminds me of another maxim:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
And that's what first concerns me about Dr Cooper's golden rule. It's too simple, quite convincing, and too convenient.
Another problem with it is that there are plenty of examples where scripture itself shows that the "plain sense" understanding isn't the correct or only sense. Think parables, think prophecies.
Doesn't 1 Corinthians 2:13 - 14 speak against using "plain sense", instead teaching that we should use a spiritual sense?
Also, idioms don't translate well. Idioms can be very easily misunderstood. If the plain sense makes sense to you, then you will stop there and completely miss the idiom, and therefore miss the meaning of the passage of scripture. The same applies to other things we find in scripture: Metaphor, allegory, types, hyperbole, prophetic imagery, and finally apocalyptic imagery. All these will be missed if we apply Dr Cooper's rule.
The first part of the maxim is fine: It's good to determine the "plain sense" meaning of a passage. But that's just the beginning. Unfortunately the second part of the maxim puts a stop to any further investigation, and may result in a wrong understanding of the scripture.
I honestly reckon that Dr Cooper's golden rule could seriously hinder good exegesis. Which is why I spoke out when I saw you quote it.
We need more than just a hammer in our hermeneutic toolbox.

You are decidedly wrong in your assumption that "metaphor, allegory, types, hyperbole, prophetic imagery" etc. would all be missed if one uses the "plain sense" maxim. I have considerably more than a hammer in my tool box. I did not spend years in grad school to deliberately misinterpret scripture to conform to some assumed, by others, preconceptions.
.....It seems you are intent on assuming I have been saying that everything is scripture must be interpreted literally, no matter what. I assure you I have not said or implied any such thing. I am quite aware that there are more than 200 figures of speech used in the Bible. See e.g. E. W. Bullinger's book with that title.
.....I am also aware that Herod was not literally a fox although Jesus called him one. Simon was not literally a stone although Jesus named him that. James and John were not literally sons of thunder although Jesus called them that. And Jesus was not literally a door, a light, a piece of bread etc. Here is a discussion which should clarify what I mean by "If the plain sense etc." These are just the key points, before rejecting them out -of-hand read the discussion which goes along with each point.

Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics for Lay Readers
Interpret Grammatically, Historically, and Critically
Interpreting Grammatically
The historical-critical method assumes that words and expressions have a relatively stable meaning during given periods of history. Therefore, we begin by taking what we can determine as the normal, everyday meaning of the words, phrases, and sentences to the extent possible.
Interpreting Historically
Historical interpretation means that we take into account the historical background of the author and the recipients as possible. The Bible was written to common people, and is understandable to anyone. However, it was written thousands of years ago to a different culture.
Interpret Critically
Your interpretation must make rational sense. If interpretation is permitted to contradict, there in no reason for hermeneutics since we may make a passage say whatever we want.
Six Practical Rules
· Interpret in light of the context of the passage.
· Interpret in light of progressive revelation
· Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture.
· Interpret the unclear in light of the clear.
· Interpret the "spirit" of the passage, not necessarily the "letter", or the literalistic meaning, especially when the text is a literary genre prone to figures of speech or colorful statements
· Interpret with dependence upon the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to teach you.
Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics for Lay Readers | Xenos Christian Fellowship​

 

[Dkh587]

I am in 180 degree opposition to that idea.

Why? Christ and the Apostles taught from the Law & Prophets. Without the Law & Prophets, they wouldn’t have had anything to teach from.

Matter of fact, Christ & the Apostles were only able to teach the things they taught because of the Law & Prophets

Nobody in the Bible taught out of the New Testament, nor was there any such thing as a “New Testament” in circulation during the time of Christ or any of the Apostles.

The NT has no authority without the Law & Prophets.

It makes 0 sense to understand a book through the lens of the 2nd half of the book. Books are read and understood from start to finish, not midway to finish or finish to start.

 

[greenguzzi]

It seems you are intent on assuming I have been saying that everything is scripture must be interpreted literally, no matter what. I assure you I have not said or implied any such thing.

I was basing my (tentative) assessment solely on what you had written thus far in this thread, and I responding accordingly. I have no doubt whatsoever that your toolkit is well equipped. Based on your most recent post, I am even more convinced that this is the case.

So I guess a better way to express myself is to say that I find your healthy and well informed approach to scripture at odds with Dr Cooper's so called "golden rule". So I am puzzled as to why you like to quote it. I guess it's a great foil against cynical heterodox dissidents like me, but it's certainly not something I'd like to get into the head of a young naive Christian.

As you implied, it is possible that our disagreement lies with the understanding of the phrase "plain sense". We seem to have different understandings of the phrase:

To me it conveys "what sense or meaning does this passage of scripture plainly and obviously mean to me right now". Now as you point out, that's not what you mean when you use the rule, but a pithy maxim isn't subtle enough to say otherwise. For example, if I read any of the wisdom literature with Cooper's golden rule verbatim in my mind and little else to guide me, I will almost certainly come away with the wrong message:
“Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.”
Wow, I can do that!
But six months later the desires of my heart have not been met. I have failed in taking delight in the Lord!
But if I had ignored the (bad) advice of "it is nonsense to seek any other sense", then I might have dug deeper, and discovered other (more correct) meanings, that weren't immediately sensible to me.

The second part of the maxim cuts off any paths of inquiry (as being nonsense) as soon as we have found an interpretation that makes "plain sense" to us. Surely you can see that this is not a good piece of advice to give without qualification. But once you qualify it, its only value (its pithiness) is lost.

 

[Saint Steven]

Why? Christ and the Apostles taught from the Law & Prophets. Without the Law & Prophets, they wouldn’t have had anything to teach from.

Matter of fact, Christ & the Apostles were only able to teach the things they taught because of the Law & Prophets

Nobody in the Bible taught out of the New Testament, nor was there any such thing as a “New Testament” in circulation during the time of Christ or any of the Apostles.

The NT has no authority without the Law & Prophets.

It makes 0 sense to understand a book through the lens of the 2nd half of the book. Books are read and understood from start to finish, not midway to finish or finish to start.

Nope. It was a mystery. Now revealed in the NT. The NY explains the OT.

1 Corinthians 2:7
No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

Romans 16:25-27
Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Ephesians 1:7-10
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

Ephesians 3:2-5
Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

Ephesians 3:8-11
Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[ColoRaydo]

This thread probably wins the award for selfish hijack and thread creep. If you want to debate something off topic, PM each other.

The original OP asked about instantly being in Heaven/Hell or being unconscious until the resurrection (probably indecipherable to the individual). That’s what we are supposed to be discussing.

I’m torn on this issue. I can see both. Though, when I really think about it, does it matter? Either way, we will be in the presence of the Lord (or not) in what seems like an instant.