Soul Sleeping? What does scripture say happens to us when we die.

[Ahwatukee]

I do not agree with you. There are no scriptures that unambiguously, without a doubt, teach this. You have to go beyond scripture to teach this.

Hello again!

People usually say that there are no scriptures to support any given Biblical truth, which is just an attempt to discredit the one who spoke the truth of God's word. However, I am not going beyond scripture regarding this issue, as I have provided those so-called non-existing scriptures below which do indeed teach the departure of the spirit to be with Christ at the time of the death of the body:

======================================
Therefore we are always confident, although we know that while we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, then, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. - 2 Cor.5:6

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. So what shall I choose? I do not know. I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. - Phil.1:21-23
======================================

As you can see, your claim that "there are no scriptures which teach this" are posted right above and are clear in their meaning. In the first scripture Paul states that to be present in the body is to be away from the Lord and that to be away from the body (the spirit) is to be at home with the Lord. The spirit must remain in the body as long as the body is still functioning. However, once the death of the body occurs for the righteous, their spirit is released and departs to be in the presence of the Lord. Paul teaches this same information in his letter to the Philippians. He states that he is torn between his spirit remaining in the body vs. the death of his body with his spirit departing to be with the Lord.

There are some who would erroneously attempt to teach that Paul is speaking about the resurrection here. However, the resurrection has to do with the spirit returning to the body and standing up again and not departing from it, which is what the word "anastasis" translated as "Resurrection" is defined as, i.e. to stand up again in a physical body. That said, the fact that Paul is talking about his spirit departing from his body to be with Christ is shows that he is not speaking about the resurrection, but the death of his body and the departure of his spirit. In further support of this, in the very first part of the Philippian scripture above, it says "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain." The fact that Paul refers to dying infers that he is talking about the death of his mortal body. And his reference to his spirit departing from the body, would be the exact opposite of being resurrected.

Now all of that said, if soul-sleep were true, then it would make no sense for Paul to say that he desired to depart from his body and be with Christ, which is better by far. If ones body, soul and spirit were asleep in the ground, how could departing the body be better by far if you are not even conscious and aware? Not to mention that Paul says "to depart and be with Christ," shows that he is speaking about dying with his spirit departing and being in the presence of the Lord. Again, if soul-sleep were true, sleeping in the dust of the earth, how could ones spirit be in the presence of Christ?

 

[Micaiah-imla]

People usually say that there are no scriptures to support any given Biblical truth, which is just an attempt to discredit the one who spoke the truth of God's word.

That is not so. The obvious attempt is to expose a false doctrine. It’s not personal. If you took it that way, I apologize.

As you can see, your claim that "there are no scriptures which teach this" are posted right above and are clear in their meaning.

They are not clear, my friend. In the first instance Paul states that we RATHER be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. He is not teaching a doctrine here. The only affirmative statement is this:

“While we are at home in the body we ARE absent from the Lord”

He did not follow up with the phrase “to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord”.

Man coined this phrase after assuming that’s what this verse inferred.

The other scripture in Philippians is another instance where Paul states a DESIRE. Not doctrine. He says:

“Having a DESIRE to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better”

In light of the scriptures Paul wrote in the first letter to the Thessalonians it is quite clear that we are to comfort one another with words found in the first letter to the Thessalonians because Paul was actually writing doctrinal revelation regarding those that sleep in the Lord.

 

[massorite]

By the way, what is a massorite?

Is it possible you mean Masorete?

Masoretes were expert Jewish scribe-scholars.

If that's what you mean, then I would say you need to learn to spell

No self-respecting Masorete would have misspelled his own profession.

Maybe that's not what you mean, though.

If it, is that would make you look pretty bad.

I started using that name a long time ago, almost 20 years back and it is the correct spelling. The bible I use is The Companion Bible of 1611 with the Structures, with Critical Explanatory and Suggestive Notes on each page It has 198 appendixes in it which cover a large variety of subject matter such as Nimrod, the Nephilim, the usage of the word Ruach, the use of the word Nephesh, the Posterity of Cain, the Spiritual Significance of Numbers, the 134 Places where the Sopherim altered "Jehovah " to 'Adonai. Archaeological finds such as the Moabite Stone and one appendix devoted to the Massorah, which I have spelled just as it is spelled in the appendix, the seventy weeks of Daniel and a ton of other very valuable information a student of the bible can learn from. The notes and appendices were added by E. W. Bullinger. The Companion Bible first appeared in The Parallel Bible in 1886. After E. W. Bullinger added the notes and appendixes the Companion Bible was first published in 1922.
The Sopherim (The men of the Great Synagogue) were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text found by Hilkiah.
2 Kings 22:8
Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it.
The revising of the Book of the Law took 110 years and when the work was complete it was turned over to the Massorites who were the authorized Custodians of the Book of the Law. their job was to preserve the Word.
The word Massorite is spelled in the appendix. Today the word Massorite might be spelled differently but in the days when this bible was first published the word Massorite was spelled just as I have spelled it, and it is of course my choice to choose to spell the word Massorite any which way I want to.

 

[JaumeJ]

1Co 15:20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.

 

[massorite]

No, the problem is that you cannot understand the vocabulary he is using, and therefore are trying to correct him on something you don't know anything about.

The issue is this: Matt is making a distinction between "spiritual" and "spirit".

Heretics like Jehovah's Witnesses teach a "spirit resurrection". They claim that Jesus was simply turned into a spirit. This is NOT CORRECT. His physical body was raised, and then glorified. It is the same body, only changed in terms of its' characteristics.

So, Matt is using careful wording to address heretical individuals who teach false doctrine.

And, you are so shallow in terms of your exposure that you think you are in a position to correct him. He's dealt with a lot of cultists over many years and that is why he is careful in his terminology.

1 Corinthians 15 calls the resurrection body a "spiritual body" so if you have problems with his terminology, your problem is with Scripture itself. Yet, apparently you think you are in a position where you can write your own commentary and instruct others, and that is why you wouldn't consider seeing what another well-informed brother in Christ has to say about something.

By the way, I think I already covered this but you are too dense to pick it up. There's a difference between "spiritual body" and "spirit body" and Matt is well educated enough to know this.


1 Corinthians 15:42-45 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 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. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
(ESV Strong's)

And, this is, many times, the state of affairs with guys on the Internet.

I have absolutely no problem with understanding the arguments that cultists try to make, and carefully framing language to address their falsehoods. I also have no problems reading the works of other well-educated brothers and learning from them. Notice that I said well-educated, not self-educated, prideful guys who have learned from others online and think they are in a position to correct others' theology.

So, to say it for the third time (?), there is a difference between "spiritual body" which is a phrase that is used in regards to the resurrection body, and a "spirit body". Matt carefully uses the right description in regards to this.

And, it is the same physical body, only glorified, which means changed in terms of qualities and composition. This change does not make it a different body. In fact, God's intention is to redeem the entire man, including the physical body. Glorified doesn't change the fact that it is the same body. It is the same body, only perfected and made incorruptible and suitable for the new creation.

So, there are no contradictions. The problem is that you are some kind of bible expert in your own mind, and you haven't socialized well enough to understand why others phrase things in a certain way. It is to deal with heretics such as Jehovah's Witnesses, and to correct false understandings within the Church.

But, I don't suppose I'm going to convince some guy like you of much. It's already apparent to me that you think you are the sum of wisdom, and able to instruct others, rather than to be instructed.

By the way, your mentality is very much similar to the mentality of the leader of the cult I followed as a young man. I would be very surprised if you're a member of a sound church.

Ok so lets do this again.
"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died.
Jesus did not rise from the dead WITH THE VERY SAME PHYSICAL BODY IN WHICH HE DIED. When Christ was raised from the grave his body had been changed from mortal to immortal. IT WAS NOT A BODY OF FLESH AND BLOOD, IT WAS NOT A NATURAL BODY. IT WAS A GLORIFIED BODY.
Then you guy Mr. Slick goes on to contradict himself by saying that Christ was raised with a spiritual body. So which is it?????
Was Christ raised with the very same body he died with( the natural body) or was Christ raised with a spiritual body.???
Maybe I am not speaking clearly here. I don't have any problem with Christ being raised with a spiritual/glorified body.
I know what scripture says.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Christ died with with a natural body and was raised with a spiritual body, NOT THE NATURAL BODY HE DIED WITH. SO HE WAS NOT RAISE WITH very same physical body in which He died.
Lazarus and the Damsel were raised from the dead from the dead WITH THEIR NATURAL BODY because Christ commands that both of them get something to eat right away. But Christ didn't run to get something to eat because the Glorified/spiritual body doesn't need food any longer. He only ate the fish to prove a point.
So there is a contradiction here with your guy Mr. Slick.

 

[massorite]

1Co 15:20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.

Many students of the Bible are not aware of the fact that the day Christ was raised from the Grave was on a Jewish day of first fruits according the existing Jewish Calendar.

 

[JaumeJ]

Many students of the Bible are not aware of the fact that the day Christ was raised from the Grave was on a Jewish day of first fruits according the existing Jewish Calendar.

Many Christians today are so blinded by misinterpretations of the Word that they have totally separated themselves from our spiritual forefathers, and this should not be so. All love and blessings in Jesus, Yeshua...…...j

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I started using that name a long time ago, almost 20 years back and it is the correct spelling. The bible I use is The Companion Bible of 1611 with the Structures, with Critical Explanatory and Suggestive Notes on each page It has 198 appendixes in it which cover a large variety of subject matter such as Nimrod, the Nephilim, the usage of the word Ruach, the use of the word Nephesh, the Posterity of Cain, the Spiritual Significance of Numbers, the 134 Places where the Sopherim altered "Jehovah " to 'Adonai. Archaeological finds such as the Moabite Stone and one appendix devoted to the Massorah, which I have spelled just as it is spelled in the appendix, the seventy weeks of Daniel and a ton of other very valuable information a student of the bible can learn from. The notes and appendices were added by E. W. Bullinger. The Companion Bible first appeared in The Parallel Bible in 1886. After E. W. Bullinger added the notes and appendixes the Companion Bible was first published in 1922.
The Sopherim (The men of the Great Synagogue) were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text found by Hilkiah.
2 Kings 22:8
Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it.
The revising of the Book of the Law took 110 years and when the work was complete it was turned over to the Massorites who were the authorized Custodians of the Book of the Law. their job was to preserve the Word.
The word Massorite is spelled in the appendix. Today the word Massorite might be spelled differently but in the days when this bible was first published the word Massorite was spelled just as I have spelled it, and it is of course my choice to choose to spell the word Massorite any which way I want to.

Fair enough. I found it listed as a variant of spelling after making my post.

Of course, I don't know anything about the claims of this "Companion Bible". But, I did a little research on it.

Apparently the cultist Arnold Murray from Shepherd's Chapel recommended it so that would make it suspect to me. He taught the "serpent seed" doctrine, amongst other things I believe he learned from Herbert Armstrong, such as British Israelism. Since I was an Armstrongite as a young man, I have watched Arnold Murray's television program a few times.

This study bible is also a ultradispensationalist work, and I am not dispensationalist. Additionally, he believed in a flat earth apparently. I definitely would not be a flat earther...it's one of the most embarrassing teachings some Christians hold, as it makes Christianity as a whole look idiotic to the world.

From Wikipedia on Bullingerism:

Bullinger's views were often unique and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called "ultradispensationalism" that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism.[12] Noted dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth." [13] Bullingerism differed from mainstream dispensationalism on the beginning of the church. Mainstream dispensationalism holds that the Church began at Pentecost, as described early in the Acts of the Apostles. In stark contrast, Bullinger held that the Church, which the Apostle Paul revealed as the Body of Christ, began after the end of Acts,[14] and was not revealed until the Prison Epistles of the Apostle Paul.[15]

Other dispensationalists (often described as "mid-Acts" dispensationalists, Acts 9 or 13) hold that the Church, the Body of Christ, began at or shortly after Saul's conversion.

Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" under which God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct." He emphasizes, "Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another."[16] He lists seven dispensations, which align with traditional dispensationalism for the most part but indicates that the Age of the Law continued until Acts 28.

Other than ultradispensationalism, Bullinger had many unique views. For example, Bullinger argued that the death of Jesus occurred on a Wednesday, not a Friday, after Pilate had condemned him at the previous midnight,[17] and that Jesus was crucified on a single upright stake without crossbar[18] with four, not just two, criminals and that this last view was supported by a group of five crosses of different origins (all with crossbar) in Brittany (put together in the 18th century).[19]

Bullinger argued for mortality of the soul, the cessation of the soul between death and resurrection.[20] He did not express any views concerning the final state of the lost, but many of his followers hold to annihilationism.

Bullinger was a supporter of the theory of the Gospel in the Stars, which states the constellations to be pre-Christian expressions of Christian doctrine.[21][22][23][24] He strongly opposed the theory of evolution[25] and held that Adam was created in 4004 BC.[26] He was a member of the Universal Zetetic Society, a group dedicated to believing and promoting the idea that the earth is flat,[27][28][29] and on 7 March 1905, he chaired a meeting in Exeter Hall, London, in which the flat earth theory was expounded.[30][31]


Source materials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd's_Chapel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Ok so lets do this again.
"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died.
Jesus did not rise from the dead WITH THE VERY SAME PHYSICAL BODY IN WHICH HE DIED. When Christ was raised from the grave his body had been changed from mortal to immortal. IT WAS NOT A BODY OF FLESH AND BLOOD, IT WAS NOT A NATURAL BODY. IT WAS A GLORIFIED BODY.
Then you guy Mr. Slick goes on to contradict himself by saying that Christ was raised with a spiritual body. So which is it?????
Was Christ raised with the very same body he died with( the natural body) or was Christ raised with a spiritual body.???
Maybe I am not speaking clearly here. I don't have any problem with Christ being raised with a spiritual/glorified body.
I know what scripture says.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Christ died with with a natural body and was raised with a spiritual body, NOT THE NATURAL BODY HE DIED WITH. SO HE WAS NOT RAISE WITH very same physical body in which He died.
Lazarus and the Damsel were raised from the dead from the dead WITH THEIR NATURAL BODY because Christ commands that both of them get something to eat right away. But Christ didn't run to get something to eat because the Glorified/spiritual body doesn't need food any longer. He only ate the fish to prove a point.
So there is a contradiction here with your guy Mr. Slick.

You don't seem to comprehend that Christ's physical body was, indeed, raised from the grave. It was raised and changed in terms of characteristics or composition. There was a continuity between the old body and the new body, much like there is continuity between a seed and the plant that issues from it.

By the way, what point was Jesus trying to prove by eating fish? The point that he was trying to prove is that he still possessed his humanity, and could enjoy food.

Now, do I think he still had blood circulating in his veins, and that he retained all his bodily process? NO. But it was the same body, only changed (glorified). There was continuity between his old body and the new body, just like there is a continuity between a seed and the plant that grows from it.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 thoroughly.

That's exactly the comparison Paul makes. And, it is a spiritual body, not a "spirit body". Spiritual means that it has characteristics that are "spiritual" and not "natural".

Matt can clearly use the term "spiritual" because it is a "spiritual body" in this sense.

By the way, what Matt says is irrelevant. He has just made the information handy. This is a consistent teaching of all Christianity. It is the same body that Jesus had, before he died, only it has been glorified. Anything else is not the bodily resurrection, and is a false teaching.

In fact, Jesus tells Thomas to place his hands in the holes from his wounds. This would be meaningless if it wasn't the same body. He was showing that there was continuity between the old body and the glorified body.

I am not saying this body had the same characteristics as the old body. It has been changed. And, this is important because redemption involves the redemption of the creation, including the mortal body.

The new body is fit for the new creation, which reaches its consummation at the return of Christ. All believers receive their resurrection bodies at that time, too, and death is defeated at the resurrection, despite the claims of dispensationalists.

1 Corinthians 15 proves all these things.

I am not sure what part you don't understand, but the resurrection body is the same body as before. It has been glorified, though, and the importance of this relates to God's purpose in redeeming all creation, including man's body. This is part of the program, and it also differentiates Christianity from Greek thought, which often considered the physical to be evil, and spirit to be good. Gnosticism is an example of this.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Matt's position, as well as my own and orthodox Christianity, is exactly the same as this article reflects.

And, the bodily resurrection is a CORE TEACHING of Christianity.

Matt was NOT claiming that the resurrection body is the same in terms of composition, but is the same physical body that has been changed. It has not been replaced; it has been changed. Again, this is important because God is redeeming his creation, including man's physical body.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do We Receive the Same Body We Had on Earth at the Resurrection?

Matt Perman

Often when referring to the resurrection, Christians will speak of receiving their "new" body. That way of speaking is not necessarily wrong if the meaning is that our current bodies will be renewed so that they are "as good as (or, better than) new." But we should not think of the resurrection as the reception of a new body in the sense that we are given a different body disconnected from the body we had on earth.

Instead, the Bible teaches that the resurrection is a transformation of the same bodies we had on earth. As humans, we are not just spiritual, but physical. Our bodies are a very important part of our identity--they are part of who we are. Therefore, if we deny that we are raised with the same bodies we had on earth, we are denying a significant part of our identity. At the same time, if we deny that our resurrected bodies are transformed, we are left with the depressing idea that we will forever be subject to the weaknesses we now have, such as sickness, fatigue, etc. As Piper has said: "The old body will become a new body. But it will still be your body. There will be continuity. God is able to do what we cannot imagine. The resurrection is not described in terms of a totally new creation but in terms of a change of the old creation" (Future Grace, 372).

We will have the same bodies

There are many Scriptural reasons for believing that we will be raised with the same body that died. First, Christ was raised in the same body He had before He died. We know this because the tomb was empty (Luke 24:1-6) and because His resurrected body retained scars from the crucifixion (John 20:25, 27). Since Christ's resurrection is the pattern that our resurrection will follow (Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:49), then we will also be raised with the same body.

Second, this is also evident from the very meaning of the term "resurrection of the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:13, etc.). The phrase means: that which is dead (namely, our body) is made alive. If the same body that died is not the body that was raised, Paul could not call it the "resurrection of the dead." It would not be a resurrection at all.

Third, the phrase "the dead will be raised" (1 Cor. 15:52) also communicates this. John Piper comments on this verse that, "If God meant to start all over with no continuity between the body I have now and the one I will have, why would Paul say 'the dead will be raised'? Why would he not say, 'the dead will not be raised (since they are decomposed and their molecules are scattered into plants and animals for a thousand miles) and so God will start from scratch'? He did not say that, because it is not true" (Future Grace, 372).

Fourth, Philippians 3:20-1 says that our earthly body is transformed into conformity with Christ's body in the resurrection, not that God creates a new body from scratch: "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself."

Fifth, Jesus speaks of the resurrection as involving the coming forth out of tombs, which strongly indicates that the resurrection is the reanimation of the body that had been lied to rest originally: "An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29).

Sixth, Paul's statement "it is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body" (1 Corinthians 15:42) establishes that there is a continuity between our current body and our resurrected body, for it is the same "it" in both cases.

Seventh, verse 53 indicates that the same body we have now (which is mortal), will become immortal: "For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality."

We will have transformed bodies

In 1 Corinthians 15:35-37, it may appear as if Paul is teaching that we are raised with a different body than which we had on earth: "...what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow the body that shall be, but mere grain." But upon examining the whole context, we see that Paul is not denying that it will be the same body. Instead, he is affirming that in the resurrection our bodies will be made better than the state they are now in.

In fact, this passage teaches a continuity between our bodies now and in the resurrected state by using the analogy from agriculture. Paul compares the resurrection of the body to the growth of a plant from a seed. The plant that results is definitely much better than the seed, just as our resurrection bodies will be better than those we have now. But there is also a real continuity between the seed and the plant, for they are the same organism. The same seed that was sown becomes the plant that grows. Likewise, the same body we have now becomes our resurrected body. But just as the plant is a result of the seed being transformed into something with better capacities and qualities, so also in the resurrection our bodies will receive better qualities and capacities. Thus, when Paul says that we do not yet have the body that shall be, he means that our current bodies are not yet in their glorified and improved state (see verses 42-44). They are not as they will be.

Paul also affirms that the resurrection involves the transformation of our current bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." John Piper comments: "He said two things: the dead will be raised (that teaches continuity); and the dead will be changed (they will be made imperishable and immortal)" (Future Grace, 372).

In what sense will our bodies be transformed? Paul tells us in verse 42-44. He says that our current bodies are weak, perishable, unglorified, and natural. But in the resurrection state they will be powerful, imperishable, glorious, and spiritual. Our bodies will be powerful--they will not be subject to stress or fatigue or weakness. Our bodies will be imperishable--they will not get sick, die, age, or become injured. Our bodies will be spiritual--they will be fully oriented to and filled with the Holy Spirit. And our bodies will be glorious. Wayne Grudem comments on the wonder of this truth:

Because the word 'glory' is so frequently used in Scripture of the bright shining radiance that surrounds the presence of God himself, this term suggests that there will also be a kind of brightness or radiance surrounding our bodies that will be an appropriate outward evidence of the position of exaltation and rule over all creation that God has given us. This is also suggested in Matthew 13:43, where Jesus says, 'Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.' Similarly, we read in Daniel's vision, 'And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever' (Daniel 12:3). (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 833).​

​

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/do-we-receive-the-same-body-we-had-on-earth-at-the-resurrection

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Hello again!

People usually say that there are no scriptures to support any given Biblical truth, which is just an attempt to discredit the one who spoke the truth of God's word. However, I am not going beyond scripture regarding this issue, as I have provided those so-called non-existing scriptures below which do indeed teach the departure of the spirit to be with Christ at the time of the death of the body:

======================================
Therefore we are always confident, although we know that while we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, then, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. - 2 Cor.5:6

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. So what shall I choose? I do not know. I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. - Phil.1:21-23
======================================

As you can see, your claim that "there are no scriptures which teach this" are posted right above and are clear in their meaning. In the first scripture Paul states that to be present in the body is to be away from the Lord and that to be away from the body (the spirit) is to be at home with the Lord. The spirit must remain in the body as long as the body is still functioning. However, once the death of the body occurs for the righteous, their spirit is released and departs to be in the presence of the Lord. Paul teaches this same information in his letter to the Philippians. He states that he is torn between his spirit remaining in the body vs. the death of his body with his spirit departing to be with the Lord.

There are some who would erroneously attempt to teach that Paul is speaking about the resurrection here. However, the resurrection has to do with the spirit returning to the body and standing up again and not departing from it, which is what the word "anastasis" translated as "Resurrection" is defined as, i.e. to stand up again in a physical body. That said, the fact that Paul is talking about his spirit departing from his body to be with Christ is shows that he is not speaking about the resurrection, but the death of his body and the departure of his spirit. In further support of this, in the very first part of the Philippian scripture above, it says "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain." The fact that Paul refers to dying infers that he is talking about the death of his mortal body. And his reference to his spirit departing from the body, would be the exact opposite of being resurrected.

Now all of that said, if soul-sleep were true, then it would make no sense for Paul to say that he desired to depart from his body and be with Christ, which is better by far. If ones body, soul and spirit were asleep in the ground, how could departing the body be better by far if you are not even conscious and aware? Not to mention that Paul says "to depart and be with Christ," shows that he is speaking about dying with his spirit departing and being in the presence of the Lord. Again, if soul-sleep were true, sleeping in the dust of the earth, how could ones spirit be in the presence of Christ?

This is an excellent explanation, and exposes the shallow exegesis of those who teach soul-sleep.

I used to be one that held this position. It is convincing at a surface level, but a deeper exegesis exposes their errors.

It is like other teachings such as annihilationism, in that it is used by fringe Christians or cultists in an attempt to sway individuals to question other core Christian teachings.

I don't think soul sleep is a salvation issue, but the problem is that fringe groups and cultists will use it to dishearten Christians..in reality, I think Christians tend to research into the roots of the doctrines deeper and realize the problems with these teachings.

 

[JaumeJ]

1Co 15:20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.

The Firstborn followed in due time by those also who sleep.
We are to be eternally freed from this body allied to corruption, and we will be in glorified form like our Savior, but not He...…. Being exactly like He is, lone, more than any can imagine.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

those who teach soul-sleep.

I used to be one that held this position. It is convincing at a surface level, but a deeper exegesis exposes their errors.

The words of a man’s mouth are as deep waters, and the wellspring of wisdom as a flowing brook (Proverbs 18:4).

It seems you have forsaken the flowing brook of scripture to navigate the deep waters of man’s words.

 

[massorite]

You don't seem to comprehend that Christ's physical body was, indeed, raised from the grave. It was raised and changed in terms of characteristics or composition. There was a continuity between the old body and the new body, much like there is continuity between a seed and the plant that issues from it.

By the way, what point was Jesus trying to prove by eating fish? The point that he was trying to prove is that he still possessed his humanity, and could enjoy food.

Now, do I think he still had blood circulating in his veins, and that he retained all his bodily process? NO. But it was the same body, only changed (glorified). There was continuity between his old body and the new body, just like there is a continuity between a seed and the plant that grows from it.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 thoroughly.

That's exactly the comparison Paul makes. And, it is a spiritual body, not a "spirit body". Spiritual means that it has characteristics that are "spiritual" and not "natural".

Matt can clearly use the term "spiritual" because it is a "spiritual body" in this sense.

By the way, what Matt says is irrelevant. He has just made the information handy. This is a consistent teaching of all Christianity. It is the same body that Jesus had, before he died, only it has been glorified. Anything else is not the bodily resurrection, and is a false teaching.

In fact, Jesus tells Thomas to place his hands in the holes from his wounds. This would be meaningless if it wasn't the same body. He was showing that there was continuity between the old body and the glorified body.

I am not saying this body had the same characteristics as the old body. It has been changed. And, this is important because redemption involves the redemption of the creation, including the mortal body.

The new body is fit for the new creation, which reaches its consummation at the return of Christ. All believers receive their resurrection bodies at that time, too, and death is defeated at the resurrection, despite the claims of dispensationalists.

1 Corinthians 15 proves all these things.

I am not sure what part you don't understand, but the resurrection body is the same body as before. It has been glorified, though, and the importance of this relates to God's purpose in redeeming all creation, including man's body. This is part of the program, and it also differentiates Christianity from Greek thought, which often considered the physical to be evil, and spirit to be good. Gnosticism is an example of this.

You said-"You don't seem to comprehend that Christ's physical body was, indeed, raised from the grave. It was raised and changed in terms of characteristics or composition. There was a continuity between the old body and the new body, much like there is continuity between a seed and the plant that issues from it."
You just contradicted yourself. Was the physical body Christ was raised with natural body Christ died with??? Or was the physical body Christ was raised with a (in your words) changed in terms of characteristics or composition???
No I do understand that Christs physical body was raised from the Grave. But it was a GLORIFIED BODY.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Sorry but based on 1 Co. 15:50 Christ did not raise from the grave with a of flesh and blood. Otherwise He would never have been able to ascend into heaven with a corruptible body of flesh and blood.

 

[massorite]

Fair enough. I found it listed as a variant of spelling after making my post.

Of course, I don't know anything about the claims of this "Companion Bible". But, I did a little research on it.

Apparently the cultist Arnold Murray from Shepherd's Chapel recommended it so that would make it suspect to me. He taught the "serpent seed" doctrine, amongst other things I believe he learned from Herbert Armstrong, such as British Israelism. Since I was an Armstrongite as a young man, I have watched Arnold Murray's television program a few times.

This study bible is also a ultradispensationalist work, and I am not dispensationalist. Additionally, he believed in a flat earth apparently. I definitely would not be a flat earther...it's one of the most embarrassing teachings some Christians hold, as it makes Christianity as a whole look idiotic to the world.

From Wikipedia on Bullingerism:

Bullinger's views were often unique and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called "ultradispensationalism" that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism.[12] Noted dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth." [13] Bullingerism differed from mainstream dispensationalism on the beginning of the church. Mainstream dispensationalism holds that the Church began at Pentecost, as described early in the Acts of the Apostles. In stark contrast, Bullinger held that the Church, which the Apostle Paul revealed as the Body of Christ, began after the end of Acts,[14] and was not revealed until the Prison Epistles of the Apostle Paul.[15]

Other dispensationalists (often described as "mid-Acts" dispensationalists, Acts 9 or 13) hold that the Church, the Body of Christ, began at or shortly after Saul's conversion.

Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" under which God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct." He emphasizes, "Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another."[16] He lists seven dispensations, which align with traditional dispensationalism for the most part but indicates that the Age of the Law continued until Acts 28.

Other than ultradispensationalism, Bullinger had many unique views. For example, Bullinger argued that the death of Jesus occurred on a Wednesday, not a Friday, after Pilate had condemned him at the previous midnight,[17] and that Jesus was crucified on a single upright stake without crossbar[18] with four, not just two, criminals and that this last view was supported by a group of five crosses of different origins (all with crossbar) in Brittany (put together in the 18th century).[19]

Bullinger argued for mortality of the soul, the cessation of the soul between death and resurrection.[20] He did not express any views concerning the final state of the lost, but many of his followers hold to annihilationism.

Bullinger was a supporter of the theory of the Gospel in the Stars, which states the constellations to be pre-Christian expressions of Christian doctrine.[21][22][23][24] He strongly opposed the theory of evolution[25] and held that Adam was created in 4004 BC.[26] He was a member of the Universal Zetetic Society, a group dedicated to believing and promoting the idea that the earth is flat,[27][28][29] and on 7 March 1905, he chaired a meeting in Exeter Hall, London, in which the flat earth theory was expounded.[30][31]


Source materials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd's_Chapel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

Yes I agree about Arnold Murray. He preached an 8th day creation of man among other things however one could still glean from his teachings. But like all preachers we might listen to we must always eat the watermelon and spit out the seeds. I don't agree with everything all of the Appendixes say in the Companion Bible and I always research the things in the Appendixes if I can. Overall the information a student of the Bible can glean from the Companion Bible is enormous.
I have never researched E.W. Bullinger but without researching him I found that the Companion Bible is a very accurate KJV in the old English.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You said-"You don't seem to comprehend that Christ's physical body was, indeed, raised from the grave. It was raised and changed in terms of characteristics or composition. There was a continuity between the old body and the new body, much like there is continuity between a seed and the plant that issues from it."
You just contradicted yourself. Was the physical body Christ was raised with natural body Christ died with??? Or was the physical body Christ was raised with a (in your words) changed in terms of characteristics or composition???
No I do understand that Christs physical body was raised from the Grave. But it was a GLORIFIED BODY.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Sorry but based on 1 Co. 15:50 Christ did not raise from the grave with a of flesh and blood. Otherwise He would never have been able to ascend into heaven with a corruptible body of flesh and blood.

I have made it clear that it is the SAME BODY but it has been changed in terms of characteristics and qualities. It has been glorified.

I compared the continuity with a seed and a plant. The glorified body is spiritual, as 1 Corinthians 15 teaches. This doesn't mean the body is spirit, but it means that it has different characteristics or qualities than the natural body prior to glorification.

The plant is not the seed, but there is a continuity between the two. They are not two totally different things. There is a continuity between the two. This is the exact analogy that Paul uses.

If a seed grows from a plant, does the seed cease to exist? No, it grows into a plant. There is continuity between the two. The plant isn't the seed, but the plant has continuity with the seed.

Yet, you seem unable to understand this. I am wondering if English is your first language. Perhaps there is a language barrier that prohibits you from understanding my words.

My position is the standard Christian explanation on this matter.

I am NOT claiming that the resurrection body is corruptible, and composed of flesh and blood. It has been changed. But it is still the same body. There is a continuity between this resurrection body and the old body. And, this continuity is compared to the seed and the plant which proceeds from the seed in 1 Corinthians 15.

As I said, God redeems his creation, and transforms the mortal body of the believer. He doesn't cast the body away, and create a nw one. The body still exists, but it has been transformed. This transformation is analogous to the seed and the plant, as 1 Corinthians 15 teaches.

This is the clear teaching of scripture. You might consider reading Romans 8 in this regard, as well. God redeems the body. He does not cast it away. Jesus' body was not in the grave. There was continuity between his body prior to death, and his resurrection body. The wounds were evidence of this continuity. God chose to preserve these wounds in Jesus' body as a testimony to his sacrifice.

Romans 8:18-23 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (ESV Strong's)

Additionally, I am not sure why you would have a problem with this. It doesn't seem like you are a cultist who believes in "spirit resurrection". Is English your first language? Perhaps this is the issue.....or the fact that you are trying to teach rather than listen to others.

Anyways, it's pretty hopeless to reason with you on this issue. I will simply state that my position is exactly what sound Christians believe. All people have to do is research the bodily resurrection from sound sources and they will hear the exact same thing.

Perhaps this Bullinger guy taught some weird belief in this regard, and you have absorbed his teaching. I don't know.

 

[massorite]

Many Christians today are so blinded by misinterpretations of the Word that they have totally separated themselves from our spiritual forefathers, and this should not be so. All love and blessings in Jesus, Yeshua...…...j

I agree and the many corrupted new bible versions are adding to the separation. When the first Gender Neutral bible first came out I contacted the International Bible Society and ask them what possessed them to come up with a Gender Neutral Bible and they couldn't give me a satisfactory answer to why they changed the natural order of things that God saw fit to put in His Word.
So even large long time and reputable groups like the International Bible Society which was founded in 1809 have been corrupted with the ways of the worldly thinking and especially the gay agenda.

 

[massorite]

I have made it clear that it is the SAME BODY but it has been changed in terms of characteristics and qualities. It has been glorified.

I compared the continuity with a seed and a plant. The glorified body is spiritual, as 1 Corinthians 15 teaches. This doesn't mean the body is spirit, but it means that it has different characteristics or qualities than the natural body prior to glorification.

The plant is not the seed, but there is a continuity between the two. They are not two totally different things. There is a continuity between the two. This is the exact analogy that Paul uses.

If a seed grows from a plant, does the seed cease to exist? No, it grows into a plant. There is continuity between the two. The plant isn't the seed, but the plant has continuity with the seed.

Yet, you seem unable to understand this. I am wondering if English is your first language. Perhaps there is a language barrier that prohibits you from understanding my words.

My position is the standard Christian explanation on this matter.

I am NOT claiming that the resurrection body is corruptible, and composed of flesh and blood. It has been changed. But it is still the same body. There is a continuity between this resurrection body and the old body. And, this continuity is compared to the seed and the plant which proceeds from the seed in 1 Corinthians 15.

As I said, God redeems his creation, and transforms the mortal body of the believer. He doesn't cast the body away, and create a nw one. The body still exists, but it has been transformed. This transformation is analogous to the seed and the plant, as 1 Corinthians 15 teaches.

This is the clear teaching of scripture. You might consider reading Romans 8 in this regard, as well. God redeems the body. He does not cast it away. Jesus' body was not in the grave. There was continuity between his body prior to death, and his resurrection body. The wounds were evidence of this continuity. God chose to preserve these wounds in Jesus' body as a testimony to his sacrifice.

Romans 8:18-23 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (ESV Strong's)

Additionally, I am not sure why you would have a problem with this. It doesn't seem like you are a cultist who believes in "spirit resurrection". Is English your first language? Perhaps this is the issue.....or the fact that you are trying to teach rather than listen to others.

Anyways, it's pretty hopeless to reason with you on this issue. I will simply state that my position is exactly what sound Christians believe. All people have to do is research the bodily resurrection from sound sources and they will hear the exact same thing.

Perhaps this Bullinger guy taught some weird belief in this regard, and you have absorbed his teaching. I don't know.

Ok even after I have quoted scripture in front of your face and in purple you still refuse to agree with the scriptures I have quoted.
So with that in mind I agree to disagree with you. I don't care about your comparisons, I only care about the perfect truth of the word written in the Word of God. I can't think of a better source to do my research from other then the Bible.
I am a full blooded American and two of the books used to base the Strong's on by Mr Strong are The Thayers and the Brown-Briggs- Driver Lexicons, so I am confident with the accuracy of the research tools that I have chosen to use.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Ok even after I have quoted scripture in front of your face and in purple you still refuse to agree with the scriptures I have quoted.
So with that in mind I agree to disagree with you. I don't care about your comparisons, I only care about the perfect truth of the word written in the Word of God. I can't think of a better source to do my research from other then the Bible.
I am a full blooded American and two of the books used to base the Strong's on by Mr Strong are The Thayers and the Brown-Briggs- Driver Lexicons, so I am confident with the accuracy of the research tools that I have chosen to use.

I encourage Christians to study the bodily resurrection from sound sources of information, reviewing the biblical references they provide, and ask yourself whether there is continuity between the body prior to the resurrection and after the resurrection.

Also, read 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 8 in this regard.

The body has been changed, but it is the same body. The comparison is between the seed and the plant, and Paul uses this comparison himself in 1 Corinthians 15.

It is glaringly clear, yet this guy rejects the bodily resurrection. And, this is an issue because God redeems his creation. Man's body is a part of his creation, and it will be redeemed as Romans 8 says.

He does the same thing with regards to the new heavens and new earth. There is a continuity between the old earth and the new earth, but at the same time, it has been transformed.

My guess is that he holds some kind of unusual belief that would be threatened if the bodily resurrection is true. That is generally why people hold on to error....it threatens some larger worldview issue that they have accepted.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

All people have to do is research the bodily resurrection from sound sources and they will hear the exact same thing.

Any source outside the scriptures is not a sound source. Only the scriptures are a sound source. No wonder your position is not in line with the Bible. Your source for the teaching you are proclaiming is not the Bible.

Should not a people seek...to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:19-20).