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

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
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.

Wow! Can you not conceive of the possibility that God doesn't see things the way we do, and even lets some of us interpret the facts incorrectly? There is no proof that if that was actually Samuel's spirit that appeared to the witch, it means she, or her familiar, or anyone or anything else, had power to control the events that day, but God himself? She tried to summon, and instead of what she expected, she got the real thing, which terrified her. So far, your constructions have not proved otherwise, but have been only speculation.

BobRyan said:
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.

I'll happily admit that it is speculation on my part, as to whether my idea of God's timeless POV implies that to him all events in and out of the temporal "envelope" we inhabit, all happen upon his speaking them into being. I don't teach it as necessarily accurate, but only as a way to look at things. But I have seen no reason to think that what happens outside of the time between the birth and death of the person is for that person to be interpreted in a timed sequence. Nor do take the time between the beginning and end of the Temporal Realm, to imply time passage in the Spiritual Realm.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
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.

Mark Quayle said:
Wow! Can you not conceive of the possibility that God doesn't see things the way we do

God is the one who condemned the witches and spiritists to death.
God is the one that says in Is 8:19 NOT to consult witches, mediums, seances
God is the one telling us in 1 Sam 28 that they are conducting a seance
God is the one calling this thing that comes up "An IT" in 2 Chron10
God is the one telling us in the chapter that He commanded Samuel and all prophets not to speak with Saul.

Your comment "God does not see it that way" flies in the face of everything God said about it. Were we simply not supposed to notice??

Mark Quayle said:
There is no proof that if that was actually Samuel's spirit that appeared to the witch, it means she, or her familiar, or anyone or anything else, had power to control the events that day, but God himself?

Until you read the actual text. God tells us in the text that it is a seance, that this is a medium with a demon/familiar spirit and the work is claimed to have been done via that demon in the text itself.

God is the one telling us only the demon and the witch supposedly see Samuel

Every detail in the text causes a problem for that suggestion

God provides the easy and obvious contrast between the seance (familiar spirit, demon , witch) version of an OT saint appearing -- vs the God-ordained version in Matt 17 where Moses and Elijah appear.

Satan's version has the saint still old and aging, wearing his old clothes -- while the Matt 17 has the saints in glory coming down from heaven, no demons, witches , seances involved.

I don't see how that is even a little bit confusing.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
. But I have seen no reason to think that what happens outside of the time between the birth and death of the person is for that person to be interpreted in a timed sequence. Nor do take the time between the beginning and end of the Temporal Realm, to imply time passage in the Spiritual Realm.

Well try reading the resurrection details in 1 Cor 15 and see if you find the text saying it is instantaneous at death or not.

notice the time element in both 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15 -- as opposed to "when the person dies"?

Phoneman-777 · Jan 17, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
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 he was Saul? She was not expecting Samuel, I say.

The demon revealed it was Saul - no other way for her to know at that moment.

Phoneman-777 · Jan 17, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
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.

I'm not. It's not my job to convict anyone of truth, so I don't get frustrated. I know the sincere seeker of truth will always submit to the Holy Spirit when He brings the truth to heart. I believe you're a sincere seeker of truth, so I know you'll eventually capitulate and I'll have to assure you that your apologies ain't necessary

Phoneman-777 · Jan 17, 2023

NotreDame said:
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.

You realize Genesis 2:7 KJV says the Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, right?

At death, when the Body goes back to dust and the Breath returns to God Who gave it, the Soul therefore ceases to exist...until the resurrection.

Which is why Paul told us to comfort one another with words of the resurrection, not with your words that the dead are already in heaven.

Phoneman-777 · Jan 17, 2023

NotreDame said:
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.

We can't force Paul's words to limit us to only two conclusions: down here in the mortal body or up there in our immortal body. The third option is naked and unclothed, lying in the grave dead without a body.

Paganism teaches that at death, the body "releases the soul" or spirit or poltergiest or spook or whatever to fly off and continue our existence on another plane of existence. Bible Christianity teaches at death, we cease to be until the resurrection.

I've gone over this many times with people, showing how the supposed "proof" texts for consciousness in death are no proof at all, like the Rich Man and Lazarus is claimed to be - it's a parable filled with symbolism that must be interpreted, the failure of which introduces multiple Scriptural contradictions.

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said:
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.
God is the one who condemned the witches and spiritists to death.
God is the one that says in Is 8:19 NOT to consult witches, mediums, seances
God is the one telling us in 1 Sam 28 that they are conducting a seance
God is the one calling this thing that comes up "An IT" in 2 Chron10
God is the one telling us in the chapter that He commanded Samuel and all prophets not to speak with Saul.

Your comment "God does not see it that way" flies in the face of everything God said about it. Were we simply not supposed to notice??

You give witches and seances a lot more credit than is their due. You make like they have the power to shut God out, with his ability to do as he will, too.

BobRyan said:
Until you read the actual text. God tells us in the text that it is a seance, that this is a medium with a demon/familiar spirit and the work is claimed to have been done via that demon in the text itself.

Where is this supposed Demon in the Hebrew text? I don't see it. Nor does it say, 'familiar spirit'. But even if it did, that doesn't prove anything about your thesis. The lack of it, though, disproves your thesis, if you hang your thesis on the claim that in the text it talks about a demon doing the things you conjecture that it did.

BobRyan said:
God is the one telling us only the demon and the witch supposedly see Samuel

What demon? And why should Saul and his men see Samuel?

BobRyan said:
God provides the easy and obvious contrast between the seance (familiar spirit, demon , witch) version of an OT saint appearing -- vs the God-ordained version in Matt 17 where Moses and Elijah appear.

Let's see— so every time God does it, everyone there sees them —every one time. Therefore since Saul didn't see Samuel, it couldn't have been Samuel?

BobRyan said:
Satan's version has the saint still old and aging, wearing his old clothes -- while the Matt 17 has the saints in glory coming down from heaven, no demons, witches , seances involved.

The gospels don't say how Moses and Elijah are dressed in the event. Nor does any other scripture, to my knowledge. In fact, it doesn't even say they came down from Heaven, but simply "appeared".

BobRyan said:
I don't see how that is even a little bit confusing.

I don't either. I'm not confused.

Phoneman-777 said:
The demon revealed it was Saul - no other way for her to know at that moment.

What demon? We really don't know how she could know. Maybe she knew what he looked like. For that matter, God could have made it plain to her. God can do whatever he wants. You have nothing there.

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
Well try reading the resurrection details in 1 Cor 15 and see if you find the text saying it is instantaneous at death or not.

Really? It has to say 'instantaneous'?

'Instantaneous' by whose measure?

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

@cradleGO -- it is the saints in 1 Cor 15:51

In John 5 Jesus says there are two resurrection.

In Rev 20 we see that the first resurrection happens at the start of the 1000 years and coincides with the Rev 19 event which is the appearing of Christ in the heavens will all the armies of heaven. That is the same as the 1 Cor 15 resurrection of the saints.

In Rev 20 we are told that after the 1000 years completes there is a second resurrection and in this one all the lost, all the wicked are resurrected, judged according to works and then cast into the lake of fire. (according to that chapter)

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
You give witches and seances a lot more credit than is their due.

I read the actual 1 Sam 28 and see what God has put there - He is the one that mentions the witch and the seance.

How is this the least bit confusing?

I think you can be greatly benefited by noticing what God said in the chapter - as already pointed out here

BobRyan said:
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?

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)

You write to me as if I am the author of all the words in 1 Sam 28 that you find inconvenient.

How is that compelling?

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
Well try reading the resurrection details in 1 Cor 15 and see if you find the text saying it is instantaneous at death or not.

Mark Quayle said:
Really? It has to say 'instantaneous'?

'Instantaneous' by whose measure?

So here you are "not reading 1 Cor 15"?

Are you trying to make the case that you really don't have to read the Bible chapters we are talking about?

I agree you don't have to read the Bible if you don't want to. I think that is a point where we can agree.

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
I read the actual 1 Sam 28 and see what God has put there - He is the one that mentions the witch and the seance.

How is this the least bit confusing?

It's not confusing. How is his mention of the witch and the seance, implicative of a demon? God can do whatever he chooses, and he did. He certainly ruined her day (not to mention Saul's)! Samuel did not speak as a demon would. He deceived nobody.

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said:
Well try reading the resurrection details in 1 Cor 15 and see if you find the text saying it is instantaneous at death or not.

So here you are "not reading 1 Cor 15"?

Are you trying to make the case that you really don't have to read the Bible chapters we are talking about?

I agree you don't have to read the Bible if you don't want to. I think that is a point where we can agree.

This back and forth is getting ridiculous. I ask again, WHY should 1 Cor 15 say anything about 'instantaneous', for it to be true? It does not deny it is possible. I have probably read 1 Cor 15 more times than you, and I read it again just to see what you think it references. It doesn't prove nor disprove 'instantaneous'. Either you're not reading my posts in their entirety, or you are ignoring the sections you don't want to deal with.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
It's not confusing. How is his mention of the witch and the seance, implicative of a demon?

It mentions witches, a seance and a "familiar spirit" of the witch.

Are you familiar with those terms?

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
This back and forth is getting ridiculous. I ask again, WHY should 1 Cor 15 say anything about 'instantaneous',

If your idea of being resurrected when a person dies were in the Bible - we would see it where the Bible discusses the resurrection of the saints - and that is in 1 Cor 15.

Are you following our discussion?

Notice the time elements in 1 Cor 15 that clearly point to the future - the far distant future in the case of that chapter.

I realize that not reading would result in not seeing it - but I think you will agree it is pretty easy to read that chapter.

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
It mentions witches, a seance and a "familiar spirit" of the witch.

Are you familiar with those terms?

Again, since you apparently aren't reading my entire posts: Where in the Hebrew text is the mention of a familiar spirit, or of a demon?

Mark Quayle · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
If your idea of being resurrected when a person dies were in the Bible - we would see it where the Bible discusses the resurrection of the saints - and that is in 1 Cor 15.

Are you following our discussion?

Notice the time elements in 1 Cor 15 that clearly point to the future - the far distant future in the case of that chapter.

I realize that not reading would result in not seeing it - but I think you will agree it is pretty easy to read that chapter.

I've already told you I can't prove it by Scripture. No, it may well be true, but God not give us his perspective (time irrelevant) on it, but describe it from our perspective (time dependent). You have not proved your thesis either, and cannot, by the Hebrew, if your thesis depends on things the Hebrew does not say. Maybe it would help for me to claim you are confused here.

Sheila Davis · Jan 18, 2023

Phoneman-777 said:
Hi, we can't trust Britannica or Webster's, but Scripture alone. We know what the Body is. But, what is the Spirit and what is the Soul? Genesis 2:7 says:

"And the Lord God formed man of the Dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the Breath of Life, and man became a LIving Soul."

(Body + Breath aka Spirit = Living Soul)
(Electric Current + Bulb = Shining Light)

The Soul comes into existence only as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath aka Spirit of Life.

So, what is the "Spirit"? It's God's "life giving principle that animates the inanimate". It proceeds forth from God when a creature commences to live and returns to God - just as it was before it left God - when that creature dies. Therefore, when the Spirit departs, it doesn't look like you, sound like you, think like you, or have anything to do with you - the Spirit is separate and distinct from the creature. Scripture says the Spirit animates saints, sinners, even those of the animal kingdom, according to Solomon who says man and beast "all have one breath".

Can you return to the moon? No, because you've never been. So, how can "you" return to God when you've never been up there with God, right? It's the "Spirit" that returns to God no differently than before it came forth from God.

So, yes, the "Body shall return to the dust and the Spirit shall return to God Who gave it" so what happens to the Soul? If Genesis 2:7 says the Soul comes into existence only as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, what is the only thing that can happen to the Soul when this union is broken?

When the switch is flipped off, does that Shining Light continue to shine on another plane of existence?

Thank you for your views

NotreDame · Jan 20, 2023

BobRyan said:
BobRyan

agreed -

what the failed idea for immortal soul ( a term not found in the Bible)

So what? The word “trinity” is not in the Bible either and yet there is Father, Son, and Spirit. The fact your preferred wording doesn’t appear isn’t a refutation.

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.

I focused upon the Greek translation and a literal Greek translation, and your paraphrase is irrelevant to both.

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."

Not in Greek! Paul wrote the verse in Greek. “to be absent, out of the body, and to be at home with the Lord.” Is the best translation. This is the translation of the Greek words used.

So, I understand why you might want to avoid the Greek translation, but the reality is both the Greek and “actually says” supports my view. I’ll explain why as I critique your argument.

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.

The “naked, no tent, no body” is the soul, the soul is naked at death. As the Psalmist wrote, “Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Sheol;” Pslams 16:10. The word “Sheol” there refers to a place the souls of the wicked and righteous dead went at death. The word “soul” enters Sheol but will not remain in Sheol. The soul can only enter Sheol at death of the body.

The soul exists after death, as indicated by the Psalmist, and reflected by Paul’s writing of “naked” as the soul, having no body at death is “naked.”

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

Ya think? In fact I never quoted any such phrase as being in the Bible to merit quotation tags.

Again that is "and to be"

So? You are placing some invisible emphasis on “to be” and “be” as you simply just state the phrase, devoid of any analysis of the phrase, as if the meaning and its usage here is an understood objective truth, like gravity causing objects to fall at 9.8 meters per second squares or 2+2=4.

The phrase doesn’t mean “soul sleep” and neither does the phrase “to be” exclude with Jesus after death but preceding the resurrection.

Certain articulations, such as “bride to be” helps you. Father “to be,” but this articulation isn’t used and is distinguishable from the “and to be” used by Paul.

The BEST, most charitable and rational interpretation of “to be” doesn’t support any of your remarks. “To be” means near future, future but that doesn’t necessitate soul sleep.

Of course Paul is talking about a future event of “out of the body” literal Greek, absent the body, and to be with the Lord at death (my view) because they are PRESENTLY alive and while alive expressing a future point in time of dying, they’re not dead yet, hence the act of dying is a “to be” the act of absent the body is a to be, and the act of absent from the body and to be with the Lord at death (my view) is a future point in time since they are presently alive!

So, your hyper focus upon “to be” doesn’t help you, doesn’t refute my argument, is consistent with my argument.

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"

That is not what is written. Nowhere in the text is the phrase “not in the body and also not present with the Lord.”

So, you can dispense with the quote tags for a phrase that isn’t in the verses.

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

The “not be found naked” is a reference to the soul without the body. As the Psalmist wrote, his soul will not remain in Sheol. Paul would prefer to have the glorified body as opposed to the unclothed soul, the soul without a body.

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.

Certainly both views agree with this part

Two distinct things.

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.

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

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

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.

No, absent the body cannot be harmonized with the notion of soul sleep until the resurrection of the body, precisely because the resurrection isn’t to be absent the body at all but to be with the body where the body.

The same body laid down is the same body raised. Paul is referring to the same body. We all have 1 body. One. That one body will be laid down and that same one body will be raised. Hence, “absent from the body” isn’t reconcilable to resurrection of the body as resurrection of the body is to be with the body!

And there isn’t any first and second body at all, it is the SAME body merely raised and transformed.

Jesus, the First Fruit of death and resurrection, didn’t have a first and second body. HIS body, HIS ONLY BODY, was laid to rest and that SAME BODY was raised.

We as humans have 1 body and the same 1 body will be raised.

The fact the same body, when raised, will transform doesn’t negate the fact it is the same body we had but merely glorified now so as to no longer be susceptible to death. Jesus had the same body at resurrection as He did before, the only difference is that same body at resurrection was no longer susceptible to death!

Paul’s “absent from the body” is not compatible with your view at all.

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.

There isn’t any “first body.” Jesus didn’t have a “first body.” Jesus had 1 body, just as the rest of humanity, and that same 1 body is raised and no longer susceptible to death, decay. There isn’t any 1 or 2 bodies. It is the same body that was laid down that is raised up.

The phrase “absent from the body” isn’t consistent with soul sleep and resurrection with the Lord because resurrection isn’t to be absent from that same body, and it is the same body but only raised!

Hence, logically, Paul is writing about something leaving the body, the soul as written by the Psalmist.

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

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Junior Member

Junior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Domer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency