Common Grace

Why do you say they are non christian?

hi LiT,
Because I’ve watched the show quite a few times and their normal material is, well, not really a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit.

Which raises the question: Can rotten apples be made into good applesauce? We tend to think not, but…

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><

Amen! God uses people in ways even the most orthodox among us
cannot deny. I was never comfortable saying who “thought” was or was not a Christian.                          Secco

Went to Paul Kelly’s web site. He says in one interview that he doesn’t believe in God but he does write songs with spiritual & Biblical themes. Sounds like he’s searching. Great song anyway. When I first heard it, I thought it might have been some old southern gospel song. Was surprised to find out how recent it was.

Watcher

Of course, this song also brings to the fore one of the greatest errors many Christians today make, that being that after we die we go straight to heaven.  Not so.  As Paul says, we go to sleep in Christ, not go to heaven.  Those that are left at the day of his coming will be preceded by those who sleep in Christ, but, imagine how incredible it will be to meet Jesus in the middle of the air.

Lord Jesus, come quickly and meet me in the middle of the air.

As to the other comments on this thread, I ask everyone to consider one thing.  Look at how fed up most us are with the institutional church.  David has it right about Common Grace, and, more importantly, when it comes down to a matter of the heart, people are suckers for the Truth.  As they should be.

Of course, this song also brings to the fore one of the greatest errors many Christians today make, that being that after we die we go straight to heaven.  Not so.  As Paul says, we go to sleep in Christ, not go to heaven. 

No disagreements from me on that one. I don’t see anywhere in the scriptures where it tells us that believers go to heaven, rather heaven will eventually come to earth in the New Creation.

maranatha

I think that Brad and David’s comments would make a good long thread. I’d be particularly interested in seeing both the scriptural exegesis and early Church Fathers’ writings on the topic. Perhaps a full-lenght post by one of you???
Of course, I am asking someone else (or two someone elses) to do the work for me but I do think it would be both personally interesting and edifying for the blog community as a whole.
Pax.

He says in one interview that he doesn’t believe in God but he does write songs with spiritual & Biblical themes.

A bishop, is he?

Well, I know this is going to sound like a cop-out, but I’m not real interested on where the early church fathers stood on this particular issue and I’m not going to research it.  But, for at least some historical support for my theological position on this issue, I ask that everyone ask themselves one question:  Why, for centuries, has “Rest In Peace” appeared on Christian graves?  It is because Christians die and rest in Christ, not go to heaven.  Otherwise, graves would have been marked with bon voyage, welcome to heaven, or something else.

Then again, this is another one of those frauds perpetrated by the church like unto that idea that good people go to heaven.  Not so.  Only those in Christ go to heaven, and only then after Jesus returns and He meets us in the middle of the air.

All in all, just like the sexy theological issues confronting the Anglican Communion, it is all about reading the scripture and taking it for what it says, rather than what we want it to say.  But, moreover, it is also taking what Scripture says and being joyful about what it says, realizing that God loved us so much that He sent his only begotten Son to redeem us, effectively coming down here Himself, to rescue his broken creation, and all the things scripture says about how we are to live in the Christian ideal is ultimately for our benefit, not our consternation.

I am an intellectual person.  However, when it comes to matters such as these, I prefer not to intellectualize my hope.  The only thing that can come of that is I will lose my hope.  Been there, done that, own the t-shirt and came round right again, to quote the Shaker song.  Sort of like Rowan Williams said about Bishop Spong’s theses - what good are they?  In any event, St. Paul was a big-time theological intellectual, but realized all the answers just weren’t there.  Why else would he write what he wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4?

It is Truth.  Might as well accept it.  But look how awesome the Truth is!

P.S.  I’ve been accused on a number of occasions of having a child like faith.  I don’t take offense at that.  Perhaps I do, and perhaps that is acceptable unto the sight of the Lord.

Absent from the body, present with the Lord.  “Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:6-8).  “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.” (Phil. 1:21-24)  “Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” ” (Luke 23:42,43). 
“For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest…But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant…” (Heb. 12:18,22-24).  “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.” (Rev. 6:9-11). Our spirits never sleep; the scriptures above show this clearly. Our bodies “sleep” -THESE will be ressurrected from the dust, and rejoined with our spirits. As to the loosening of this mortal coil, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Eccl. 12:7)

What Bob K said… Bob’s fingers are faster than mine,
his mind’s probably quicker too… I was in mid-response…..

Yeah, my understanding is that the body and the spirit are separated at death, and that the spirits of the Elect go to be with the Lord;  and that bodies and spirits will be joined (resurrected) at or around the Final Judgement. 

I agree that Heaven is a place prepared for Elect folks who are “together,” body + spirit;  but that doesn’t rule out the spirits of the Elect being both conscious and in the Lord’s Presence. 

The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, imho, speaks to this.  It’s context is obviously before the Final Judgement, since the Rich Man wants to go back to evangelize his kinsmen.  Preaching the Gospel would be an irrelevant pursuit, after the Final Judgement.

The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, imho, speaks to this. It’s context is obviously before the Final Judgement, since the Rich Man wants to go back to evangelize his kinsmen. Preaching the Gospel would be an irrelevant pursuit, after the Final Judgement.

I think that’s right. Both the rich man and Lazarus are awaiting the resurrection - one with great hope and the other with tragic finality.

ISTM that the scriptures indicate that upon death one goes to sheol/hades, which is further divided in two. That “good” part is the “paradise” that Jesus speaks of and “Abraham’s bosom”. Come the resurrection and the return of the Lord there will be a New Creation which we will inhabit in our resurrection bodies. That will, in a sense, be heaven for heaven will have come down to earth.

of course, the question as to what the intermediate state is like is one of great debate and best that we don’t make it the mark of orthodoxy. I addressed it tangentially a while back when I looked at Calvin’s view of the descensus (i.e., where did Jesus spend Easter saturday?).

I have been wondering about something and maybe this is the time and place to ask:

And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

But, we say in the Apostles Creed

Was crucified dead and buried: He descended into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven,

Isn’t there a contradiction there? I realize it is trivial in the overall scheme of things, but wouldn’t that mean Jesus was promising that someone could be with him in Paradise the same day as the crucifixion, but that, in fact, it would take a few days because Jesus would descend into hell first?
(Please don’t think I am being snarky.)

Bob:

Exactly.  Resting in Christ.  Paradise for Dismas.  In Revelation, the Martyrs are to rest a while longer.  I never said we go to sleep in Christ.  What I did say is that we rest.  It is the point between the church militant and the church triumphant.  I notice you didn’t say we go to heaven when we die (que the sacred harp singers…)

Moot:

Notice what you said - you didn’t say go to heaven, you said go to be with the Lord.  Perhaps this is resting in Christ?

As I said earlier, people are suckers for the truth.

deja vu, I address that question directly in my essay linked above.

Notice what you said - you didn’t say go to heaven, you said go to be with the Lord.  Perhaps this is resting in Christ?

I think we agree, but I don’t think we arrive at the agreement in the same fashion. 

Well, give it a think, brother Moot.

One other small point - throughout our liturgy, they talk about the Saints being in that “heavenly country”.  Why doesn’t the liturgy just say heaven?  Heck, look at Anglican burial offices.  A whole bunch about rest and being with the Lord, being in the heavenly country, coming to our resurrection with Christ (as in Revelation) but nothing about going straight to heaven and that is it.

BTW, I read David’s piece at his old blog, and it is excellent.

I can’t pull it out of your essay. My question is only a timing issue. The Apostles Creed doesn’t put Jesus in heaven until the third day:

The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven,

But Jesus puts himself there on the same day as the crucifixion:

today you will be with Me in Paradise.

Are you saying Jesus descended into sheol/hades, which is `divided into a bad part and the ‘paradise’ that Jesus speaks of and ‘Abraham’s bosom’. “? So, are you saying, therefore he was actually in the good part, Paradise, before the third day when he arose from the the dead and ascended into heaven?

Yep, Deja Vu.  You are getting it.

THIS is what is wrong with some of the orthodox….to quickly decide who is Christian and who is not…not your call…how delightful…thanks for posting it!

Mad Potter
What exactly is your justification for using the word “quickly” in this sentences?  It implies David Ould made a rash hasty judgment without sufficient basis.  But there was nothing in David Ould’s post which would allow you to say it.  Did you insert it because otherwise the sentence would have said:

THIS is what is wrong with some of the orthodox….to <s>quickly</s> decide who is Christian and who is not

Of course this statement is not controversial - at least not for people who define a Christian according to what he believes.  But defining a Christian by what he believes is exactly what liberal Christianity refuses to do.  Instead it defines a Christian according to some nebulous experiential claim of a relationship with Jesus - where each man defines his own concept of Jesus.  And to prove this, all I have to do is ask liberals to start attaching required definitions to the statements in the Nicene Creed.  They will scatter like roaches on the kitchen floor when the light is turned on.

carl

Keep in mind that, along with Psalm 23, this is the passage which the song mentions:

13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

yes, that’s pretty much it. From the essay,

As we have seen, despite the Fathers’ seeming unanimous assent there is no actual scriptural reference to a descent by Christ. The nearest we may come is to suggest that the promise of Jesus to the thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), may be said to imply such an action. It is by no means a cast-iron argument but it is certainly not contradictory to scripture to suggest that Jesus, upon dying, in some way “descended” to “Abraham’s Bosom”, otherwise known as “Paradise”, where He sojourned until His resurrection.

This is my conclusion:

This, surely, was the comfort of the thief on the cross. He was not abandoned in any way by Christ. If we belong to Christ then the after-life need not make us afraid. We will go where Christ went and where that thief still is - to Paradise; Abraham’s Bosom – secure in the knowledge that our future resurrection from that place and into a New Heaven and Earth is as certain as that of Him who went before us, whose raising from death in Hades is the firstfruits of our own Resurrection at His coming

ps, thanks for the kind words Brad.

Comon’, Carl, we are talking about meeting the Lord in the middle of the air.  Sure, my friend Potter, who claims to be very liberal, gets in a snit when we conservatives get overly judgmental in his opinion.  No need to feed that when we have something so much better to discuss.

I hate to say this, but this has been the most enjoyable Anglican blog thread for me ever, largely because we didn’t talk about the presenting issues, but real honest to God look what the Lord has done and is going to do kinda stuff.  The kinda stuff Christians talk about.  Just fabulous.

G’nite folks.

So, according to Calvinist theology, Jesus went to Paradise immediately after the Crucifixion and then he ascended from Paradise to heaven on the third day?

So, according to Calvinist theology, Jesus went to Paradise immediately after the Crucifixion and then he ascended from Paradise to heaven on the third day?

No, not quite (as a read of the essay would elaborate).
Calvin argued that the “he descended to hell” article of the creed referred to Christ’s death as “hell”. I suggest that he was wrong and give reasons why. My contention is that there truly was a descensus to “hell/paradise” (for more detail on that seeming contradiction read the detail) from which Christ rose on the 3rd day. It is commonly held that he ascended to heaven 40 days after that.

Well, give it a think, brother Moot.

Like I said, I think we agree;  we just don’t seem to arrive at the same conclusion using the same path. 

A goldfish may not be said to reside in a doghouse, but in a fishbowl;  even though an occupied fishbowl may fit inside of a doghouse. 

Heaven I see as God’s eschatological goal for pre-Fall Adam, and (failing that) for those purchased by Christ’s blood.  If Heaven then is the goal, then there can’t be yearning, nor a profound sense of incompletion, as we see in Rev 6. 

But as I said, conscious and in the Lord’s Presence (Who is in Heaven).  Same address - just different digs.

So the way David puts it, if we belong to Christ then in the after-life we will go where Christ went and where that thief still is - to Paradise; Abraham’s Bosom – secure in the knowledge of our future resurrection from that place.
But does David’s way mesh with “going to be with the Lord, resting in Christ,” since in David’s way we would be going to where the thief still is but Christ no longer is, having risen to heaven?
Does this question mean that my understanding is finally catching up to where the thread was half an hour ago?

thanks DV, and sorry for the slight snarkiness in the last post. I had a “stop asking me and just read the essay” moment which was uncharitable.

I too, wonder how it meshes with the “be with the Lord” language, expressed most eloquently by Paul in Phil 1:21ff. I think that two options are open:
1. That Paul speaks of an inevitable “being with”, rather and something instantaneous.
2. Moot’s suggestion that the Lord is, in some way, right there. How that works I don’t know.
I think on this question the Scriptures are silent but I’d love to hear what others think.

Well, I think Christ transcends space and time such that he can be in heaven and also with each of us and everywhere.
He was even present before the beginning of the world, before all things were made.
(Just my personal theology.)

Good discussion. Its late here, but I may pick this up tomorrow. While indeed we “see through a glass, darkly”, it’s been my experience that we can usually pick up a thread from scripture which leads us to where we need to go. Better minds than ours have delved into this question, and theres more I’d like to add-but again, I must take a rest in sleep (given the topic at hand, I didnt just want to say “I’m going to sleep”!).

Good night all.

Hi folks-I was getting ready to go to sleep, and I remembered a wonderful website, which I would recommend to all. I believe the fellows name is David Root, and the website is called .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Anyway, Dave has given a very thorough treatment to the topic we’ve been discussing, and it says what I wanted to say, only with a lot more depth and clarity. Even if you dont agree with his conclusion, the amount of information given makes it worth the read. The link : http://www.layhands.com/DidJesusGoToHell.htm    -Bob

Isaiah 57:
 

57:20 But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
  57:21 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

The only rest we will receive is in the Lord, although our bodies may sleep.

My take I would say in agrees in may ways with the commentary
Did Christ Descend Into Hell? by Lambert Dolphin (with an addendum by Peter Toon who states “Thus while Calvin’s explanation is thoroughly biblical, it can hardly be a right interpretation of this article.”) as it agrees with my belief that the fall of Satan and his angels and the battle of Revelation are concurrent, happening about us now. The passage of time between these events are only what we observe bodily. Time is a human construct and measurement and has no meaning outside of the body. Christ was in Hell for three days because that fulfilled the scriptures, not because he was checking his watch to see when 72 hours passed. The same “day” he was in paradise with the thief as no “time” would truly pass for the thief upon death.

Although being Roman Catholic I would disagree with Dolphin’s statement that:

Prayers to Mary or to other saints who have “gone on before” are therefore without meaning. Mary, Jude and others will arrive in heaven the same time we do!

as it disagrees not only with RC doctrine but the opening of the fifth seal in Revelation.

I think this whole discussion about what happens to believers when we die occurs because we live in time.  From our time bound standpoint, there is a period of time between death and the resurrection from the dead.  However, God exists beyond time.  So, from God’s standpoint, there is little or no difference.  We are absent from the body and present with the Lord at the same “time.”  The way my Systematic Theology Professor put it is this.  At the funeral of a little girl, the preacher said that she had experienced the resurrection, we (those who are left) just hadn’t caught up with her yet.

So, what happens between our death and the General Resurrection?  Well, I think it depends on your point of view - those who are left or God’s and I am not going to worry much about it, but I will faith that God will continue to care for me as He has cared for me in the past.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I do not know the status of these guys baptism, which is the 39 Articles definition of being a Christian and I certainly do not presume to know the status of their election. They may not demonstrate fruits of the Spirit in other performances, but on this selection they did a very beautiful job. Even if the all the worse is true, the Lord can use anything and this did edify my soul this morning.

I find it kind of interesting that no one has mentioned (unless I swept past it) the gospel reading of last Sunday,

... even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.

Then there was the episode in our Lord’s life on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Moses and Elijah were conversing with him, Mark 9.

I see two ways of looking at the period of time after our death: one from our temporal perspective, and one from God’s eternal / timeless perspective. Our temporal perspective has life and the afterlife laid out moment after moment, while God’s timeless perspective has all events of all time ever before Him. “He knows the beginning from the end.”

So temporally our body sleeps after death, awaiting the resurrection. Our spiritual presence (soul / spirit) is with the Lord, resting in Him. And from God’s perspective the time between our death and resurrection that we perceive does not exist.

David

Hmm.. I’m a little perplexed that no one’s brought up the P-word that you’re all hedging around: Purgatory. So there, I’ve said it. It’s the orthodox view of Christian death that there is a place and time (of whatever construct you need/like) that is a place of rest, purgation, final cleansing before full entry into the heavenly kingdom (viz. general resurrection, etc.). The details of this vary, but the fact remains that what we’re talking about is, in fact, purgatory. We shouldn’t be ashamed to say so.

Actually, we’re talking about the “I-word(s),” with an “R-word,” flavor. 

What a great discussion! Not that I think our salvation is, in any way, contingent on our eschatology—on the contrary, I think we are allowed a LOT of room to simply WONDER about some of the deeper mysteries of God…

Off-topic, for a moment: I love David Ould. I just discovered his web site yesterday. Or was it the day before yesterday? Time flies when you’re having a good time, I guess…

For whatever it’s worth (not much, i know), I personally favor Calvin’s take on eternity. I am just not sure exactly how I would personally express or distill my understanding of Calvin’s position.

It seems to me that the mechanisms, the actual time-frame, and the component parts of the END (so to speak), are not really very important. What we can all be assured of is a joyous place in eternity with God, so long as we cling to Jesus and trust him in this life that we are given…

The dead will rise bodily some day. As I understand it, in the New Jerusalem we will have glorified bodies, to be sure; but bodies nonetheless. There will be a day of judgement. God will eventually triumph over the forces of darkness and evil. And we will deeply KNOW the love of God in ways that we cannot imagine from our perspective in this fallen world. For now, all of that’s enough for me. It sounds real good to me. I’ve been a Christian long enough to know that it is NOT easy to follow Jesus. But the Bible seems to offer a LOT of assurance that we will have NO difficulty remaining in the Presence of our Lord once we inhabit our eternal mansions (silly terminology, I know. But I confess that I rather like the idea of getting a mansion someday!) n the New Jerusalem.

ShawnS,

As I’ve said before on this site, I really LIKE the idea of purgation BEFORE I meet my God, face-to-face… The idea of meeting him while I am still covered with the muck and stink of my sins is rather appalling to me… Obviously, there is nothing particularly Biblical about the idea of “Purgatory”—at least, as many Roman Catholics simplistically conceive of Purgatory. But the basic idea that attaining eternity will entail a measure of final purgation (regardless of the mechanism or the means) is, in and of itself, a Biblically sound idea. I speak as one who identifies himself as a five-point Calvinist. I’ve never quite understood the Calvinist aversion to the idea of some sort of purgation. I suspect that for most Calvinists, this aversion is not particularly rational. I suspect that it is probably rooted in some sort of deep visceral emotional reaction to the nuttier ideas about Purgatory that one hears being bandied about in the Roman Catholic Church. I fully expect to spend some time in a place of purgation. And I fully expect that once there, I am going to have a lot of FUN with some of my fellow-Calvinists who are there with me, telling them, “I told you so!”

Off-topic, for a moment: I love David Ould. I just discovered his web site yesterday. Or was it the day before yesterday? Time flies when you’re having a good time, I guess… 

too kind. So come and leave a comment rather than lurking!!!

I suspect that for most Calvinists, this aversion is not particularly rational.

On the contrary! I seem to recall us having this discussion a while ago…

Brad Drell,

How do you explain the verse in scripture:
“To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”?
(can’t remember exactly where, but have always taken comfort in it, and know I have read it myself.)

blue narrative-we will indeed rule and reign with Christ here on the earth, for a thousand years in our glorified bodies. I look forward to this myself. Since I have a thing for animals (OK, OK, I’m an animal lover-so now you know), I look forward to the time that I can have fun with bears and cougars and the like, without worrying about becoming lunch.  After 1000 years, the final rebellion will occur; it will be rapidly put down, the resurrection and judgement of the wicked will be carried out, the devil, death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire, and the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven onto a new earth-the whole creation will somehow be reborn. (Rev. 20-21). The closer I get to the end of this earthly life, the more I anticipate the glorious future, when the prince of the power of the air no longer rules the earth, but Christ does (Dan.2:34,35,44 - Is. 2:1-4).

Heartafire,
“To be absent the body is to be (eventually) present with the Lord.”
We all await the Resurrection and Judgement Day to come.

Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Today, I tell you, you WILL (eventually) be with me in Paradise.”  Jesus did not go to heaven that very day, because three days later He told Mary not to touch Him, because He had not yet ascended.  So, Jesus says himself, that He did not go to heaven on THAT day.  Jesus died for us, and was dead (in the grave) for three days.

Psalms 6:5 “For in death there is no rememberance of Thee,” and continuing, “in Shoel (the grave), who can give Thee praise?”

If the dead go immediately to heaven, that would mean there is no death, we would be immortal.  We are not immortal.

Rev. 1:5 and 1 Corintians 15:20 both refer to Christ as being the “first fruits” of them that slept.  Therefore, if Christ was the first to rise from the dead, then Moses, and Abraham, and Isaac Jacob and Job had not risen.  They are all awaiting the Resurrection and Judgment Day of the Lord.

And Ecclesiastes 9:5 “the dead know nothing.”  Not even the passing of time.  To them it will be like sleep, and they will be awaked as if no time had passed for them, as if in an instant.  May they all “Rest in Peace,” knowing that Christ will return, and they WILL be resurrected.

And in the Nicene Creed:  “We LOOK FOR the resurrection of the dead.”

Somebody mentioned this earlier but I didn’t see a response:

If the dead are asleep, and have no remembrance, and aren’t immortal, and have not risen, and know nothing, how was it that Moses and Elias appeared with Jesus on the Transfiguration Mount?

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><

As to the Transfiguration, it is said in Matthew 17:9 that this was a VISION.  Perhaps it was shown to them as a form of a parable linking Jesus with the forefathers. 

Perhaps it was a vision of the future.  1 Corinthians 15:22,23 states that all <bold>shall</bold> be made alive, but <bold>each in his own order.</bold>  This could have been a vision of the future when Christ was showing that He would have the power of resurrection, and could choose whom He would resurrect, and in which order, and at which time that He chose.

And thirdly, they were on earth, not in heaven.

And lastly, Jesus could wake and converse or preach to the dead any time He chose, and they might still be put back into sleep and even awakened again so that they would have a consciousness of Christ’s choosing, as when the souls under the “Altar” of heaven (not yet enjoying heaven) cried out, how long must we wait?

And yes, Lazarus and the rich man was a vision, not reality of people in heaven or hell yet, or even purgatory.

Who is in heaven now that realizes that one of their children is not with them, because their child is in hell, or still in agony with us on earth?  What kind of heaven would that be?  No, there is no one in heaven yet.

We look for the resurrection of the dead and the world to come.

MasterServer, just a couple of points…

As to the Transfiguration, it is said in Matthew 17:9 that this was a VISION.  Perhaps it was shown to them as a form of a parable linking Jesus with the forefathers. 

It’s an unfortunate translation. Jesus actually tells them to tell no-one of “to orama” - literally “that which was seen”. There’s no indication that this was a “vision” as opposed to a “real” event. “orama” comes from the verb “ora-oh”, “to see”.

And yes, Lazarus and the rich man was a vision, not reality of people in heaven or hell yet, or even purgatory.

Well, a number of things in the text (Luke 16:19 ff.) speak against that. First, it’s not called a vision. Second (and this intrigues me no end) Jesus doesn’t even introduce the event as a parable. He just launches straight in.
Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s de facto a description of reality but I think it certainly gives no grounds for us claiming that it’s a vision.

The purpose of my question was to propose that the actual situation might not be so simple as you make it. Of course, there are many scriptures saying that the dead sleep and are unaware. However, there are others which indicate they aren’t asleep and they are aware; some of those scriptures indicate the dead are present spiritually (Heb 12:1) and others that they are present physically (Transfiguration). A true answer should consider both threads. The Hebrews sctipture, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in particular indicate that the dead are not only aware of those they left behind… they are very CONCERNED about us.

Phil from Dallas had a good comment, IMO: God stands outside time while we stand within; therefore divine actuality may be quite different from the actuality that we perceive. That concept would answer a number of questions as to sequences of events and when things happen.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><

David Ould,
You make good technical points, however, since God’s Word does not contradict itself, we should not be left with contradictions. 

The Transfiguration:  A Vision is a “seeing,” so the root or the translation of the word is moot. Also, since no one had ascended to heaven because Jesus was to be the “First Fruits,” and had not been crucified or resurrected yet, so they were not in heaven.  But if they were “seen” as “resurrected,” then this must have been a “vision” of the future, when they were raised, or this was just a scene where Jesus awakened them from their “sleep” temporarily.

Lazarus:  Luke 15 starts off with the people drawing to Jesus so He told them this parable - of the 100 sheep, then He told them of the woman with 10 coins, then He told them of the man with two sons, then He also told them of a rich man, then He (launched right in and)
told them that “There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen . . . ” (Lazarus).  So it is told as a “story,” a “parable.”  And we both agree that this is not a vision of reality.

Peace.

dpeirce,
Things may not be so complicated as one thinks.  Jesus spoke to us in simple ways.  The Word of God does not contradict itself.  Where we have people that are asleep and unaware, and awake and aware, we have two different situations.  Is it not possible that God could cause people to sleep, then awaken them and talk to them, and make them aware of certain things, and then put them back to sleep until the resurrection? 

And yes, the Lord could make a man in a parable seem to be aware of us and concerned about us.  So, yes, I agree we should consider both threads, and show their simple resolution to simple men, not as contradiction.

But the simple basic truth still remains, Jesus was the “First Fruits” of them that slept.  So if Abraham had not received the promise, then also not Moses and Isaac and Jacob and my wonderful grandmother, or anyone else, yet.

And with a God that stands outside of time, it certainly would be possible for God to explain things in a simple way to simple men so that they could understand and believe in simple ways and simple truth.

We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Peace.

This is really such a fun thread for me to read—reading what people have to say on these subjects, honestly helps me to unwind. It’s almost therapeutic, or something. Truly.

I like the tone of this conversation, no less than the substance. And I am being completely sincere when I say “thank you” to all who have participated in this discussion. How nice it is to be able to get away from some of the awful things that are going on in the Church these days and, instead, for at least a short while, think about Eternity!

There was a time when I thought that I was pretty good with Greek; I could plod through Hebrew; and I had a attained some slight mastery over Aramaic. But that was a while ago. These days, my Greek is probably just barely passablle; my Hebrew is atrocious; and my Aramaic deserves no recognition whatsoever… However, even when I was at my linguistic peak, so to speak, I never would have dared to presume that I could master the linguistic subtleties and nuances that are inherent to some of the texts that you folks are grappling with here. I am impressed by everybody’s willingness to tackle some decidedly difficult passages in the Word of God.

I wonder, in passing, if I am the only one following this thread who thinks that it should be perfectly obvious that God’s sense of time, as it were, is something so immense and wonderful that we will probably never even begin to understand it, as long as we remain in this fallen and broken world, living out our lives in patently unglorified bodies and using our no-less-patently unglorified minds?

I do not want to sound at all dismissive on this subject. But, it seems to me, trying to work out a precise schematic understanding of time from God’s perspective, so to speak, is somewhat futile.

Exegesis is a wonderful thing. Attaining a sound grasp of the exact meaning of Scripture is always a good thing. Do not think that I am in any way belittling the discussion, or accusing anybody of splitting hairs. Indeed, so many of the troubles that we see besetting the Church today have their origin in an unwillingness on the part of some self-professed “Christians” to pay careful attention to the Word of God.

Having said this, however, I also have to say that I think it is enough for MOST people to simply understand that our lives have eternal consequences, and that the Lord has prepared for thos who have faith in Him an eternal time of unimaginable joy…

The Transfiguration:  A Vision is a “seeing,” so the root or the translation of the word is moot.

Well, yes. The point I was making was that the claim that it is a “vision” is an overtranslation of the greek. It was simply something seen - the same could be said of my computer screen right now.

But if they were “seen” as “resurrected,” then this must have been a “vision” of the future, when they were raised, or this was just a scene where Jesus awakened them from their “sleep” temporarily.

Well, you’ve got me there. I don’t think they were “resurrected” but nor does the text give any indication that it’s a future event.

So it is told as a “story,” a “parable.” And we both agree that this is not a vision of reality.

Actually, we don’t agree. Even if it is a “parable” (which I’m not denying as a possibility) it may very well be grounded in reality.

I have many issues with some of what I read here. The first, is the introduction of words into scripture that are not there. Masterserver, you wrote the following: ““To be absent the body is to be (eventually) present with the Lord.” The word ‘eventually’ never appears in any NT manuscript. You have no right to insert it there so that you may make it say something different. You did it yet a second time:” “Today, I tell you, you WILL (eventually) be with me in Paradise.”  The scripture does not read “eventually”. Parentheses or not, that is an addition to the word of God. Secondly, yes, Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, to have a resurrection BODY. That says NOTHING about the state of a persons departed spirit. Now; on to the transfiguration. Lets follow it step by step. Jesus took Peter, James and John with Himto a high mountain. OK? As He prays (not appeared to pray; He actually prayed), the appearence of His countenanced was (not appeared to be) altered, and His clothing was white and glistening. An actual change had occurred. And behold, there talked with Him Moses and Elijah (it doesnt say appeared to talk with Him; Moses and Elijah actually talked with Him), concerning His impending atoning death which was to take place in Jerusalem; an actual, not apparent, future event. Then Peter spoke to what he had actually witnessed, proposing to build booths for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. Now-here is something; God the Father Himself, coming down to them in a cloud, ‘overshadowed’ them, and actually spoke to them. Then, Moses, Elijah, and the Holy presence of God the Father departed, leaving Jesus alone. These things were a series of actual holy events, not a deliberate lying deception by Jesus. You keep bringing up the word vision-you said yourself that it simply meant a seeing-the other two gospel writers didnt share your’ insistence that this was a deceptive non-occurance. Mark simply records: ” And as they came down from the mountain, He charged them that they should tell no man what they had seen[not ‘appeared’ to have seen], till the Son of man were risen from the dead.” (Mark 9:9) Luke states: “And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.” (Luke 9:36). Moses’ spirit (NOT resurrected body), was seen here, so there is no conflict whatsoever with the future resurrection of the bodies of the saints. As for the nature of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus; Jesus was giving true details about what happens in hades-parable or not, Jesus was either painting a true picture of what occurs there, or He was being a deceiver. Since what the afterlife holds is too important of a subject to be telling deceptive tales about, it would stand to any form of reason to accept Jesus Christs description of what happens to the spirits of both the righteous and the wicked upon death as completely accurate. The writer of Hebrews is quite plain: when we aproach God through Christ in the realm of heaven, one group that is there with God is “the spirits of righteous men made perfect”. Not the resurrected bodies of the same; that will happen in the future.

I think that Bob K and David Ould both make a valid point—Masterserver, you cannot have it both ways. The FIRST time you tried to explicate the text you used the word “vision” and clearly IMPLIED that this was a thing apparently seen, but not actually seen. You then backtracked rather quickly—and, I think, transparently, when you were challenged…

All of this ferocious EXEGESIS has left my head spinning. And so, probably to maintain my equilibrium, I find myself almost compulsively analysing the ISOGETICAL possibilities inherent in the various comments posted here… The texts under discussion seem are almost too sublime and too intimidating to me. It’s a lot more fun to dig into everybody’s comments, I think! 

Reading between the lines, I am wondering about Masterserver… I am sure he’s a good guy, and probably means well. But I confess that the name “Masterserver” has an almost ambiguous ring to it—the name is, to me, slightly spooky. It took me a while before I figured out how it could be seen as a reasonable appellation for a Christian… But maybe that is just some quirk of my brain; maybe, when looking at things in general, it is just easier for me to conceive of negative space, rather than positive space… Be that as it may, am I the only one who has sensed that there is something almost INVERTED about the Christian propriety of that name? Just curious…

the ISOGETICAL possibilities

*koff* eisegetical *koff*
from the greek eis = into

I appreciate the responsible thought going into this thread in rebuttal of my simple assertion that the Scripture says that the living and the dead still await for Christ’s coming in glory and the accompanying resurrection, therefore, since no one is in heaven yet, but many have died (fallen asleep), they are at rest in the grave, feeling no pain, and experiencing no sense of the passing of time.  May they all “Rest in Peace” until the Judgment Day of the Lord.

When others bring up points to say this is not true, I am simply trying to show that those elements must be “visions” or parables or revelations of future events.  These are not actual events, otherwise, we have contradictions in what the Scripture says.

Another possibility is that these are acts of temporary nature in which Jesus wakes and speaks to some while they have not yet been resurrected or in heaven.  That way there is no contradiction.  What is being presented otherwise would be a contradiction of Scripture, or showing that Scripture contradicts itself, which it does not.

I understand that it is great comfort to people to think that their loved ones go immediately to heaven upon death, but that is just not what the Scriptures say.  They should still be comforted to know that their loved ones no longer experience pain or sorrow or tears, and are asleep in the Lord, having no sense of the passing of time, and when awakened for the resurrection, their time in sleep will seem as though only an instant had passed - the twinkling of an eye.

As to the claim that I am adding a word “eventually” to a phrase, I assure you that I am not adding such a word.  The phrase still makes sense without the word “eventually.”  I give that to you as a way to understand the sense in which Jesus spoke to the thief (on that day), which removes an “apparent” contradiction when Jesus did not go to heaven with the thief on “that” day.

Likewise when one is “absent the body is to be with the Lord” (eventually) - I might add that some people are trying to add the word “instantly” which is not there either.  It appears that one understanding is consistent with Scripture and the other is not.  I am trying to show how an “apparent” contradiction is not a contradiction at all.

Thank you for your feedback.

As far as the name “MasterServer,” all of the good names (like yours) were already chosen. 

Seriously, the name was chosen years ago when I first got into cyberspace, years before I discovered StandFirm - years ago when “servers” were the ultimate coordinator of web info.

It still seemed to fit when I moved into StandFirm.  There is nothing “sinister” intended.

Peace.

When others bring up points to say this is not true, I am simply trying to show that those elements must be “visions” or parables or revelations of future events. These are not actual events, otherwise, we have contradictions in what the Scripture says.

I think, to be fair, you are mistaking a questioning of your “visions” thesis with a general rejection of the “resting in the Lord and waiting for the resurrection” position that you set out. I certainly hold to the latter and yet I have questioned the former on the basis that the texts you have presented don’t actually say what you say they say.

On the other hand, I have no idea how Moses and Elijah were brought out of sheol/hades to meet with the Lord. But what I do know is that the text doesn’t support the thesis that it was a “vision” in the sense that you indicate.

Thanks, though, for raising the question. I think it’s a genuinely good one. I just don’t think you’ve provided the right answer.

David Ould,

You MUST cut me some slack, in terms of egregious typos and ridiculous spelling errors! Please!

I usually save THIS particular thread for my late-night reading. Which means that many of my comments are being written when I am either fading out quickly, or else already half-asleep! Even when I am wide awake and in good form, my typos and inexcusable spelling errors are rather pronounced, I know. But I don’t think that I have ever come up with anything quite as infantile as “isogesis,” prior to midnight EST… I think it was actually around 1:00am or so when I made that comment—WAY past my bedtime!

Looking back at it now, I suppose that I must have simply missed the “e” key at the very start of the word. But that leaves unexplained the “o” in place of the second “e” in the word… Maybe, I just momentarily lapsed into the consciousness of a five or a six year old child, and dashed the word off in some childish frenzy of phonetical enthusiam… I don’t know…

Believe it or not, I earn my living as a writer… Really. I do… Most of the time, professionally-speaking, I think that I am a pretty good writer. But, even at my best, I am a dreadful typist! 

EVERY writer that I know NEEDS an editor. In my experience, the two aptitudes (that of a writer and that of an editor) are very rarely conjoined in any one individual.

Do you see how DESPERATELY I squirm when light is cast on my shortcomings?   

Masterserver,
I hope you did not take offense at my idle thoughts on the name “Masterserver.” It was just a quirky thing that I had noticed—not a big deal. And I indulged in some speculative rambling… I have enjoyed and appreciated your comments, though I find myself ultimately much more in agreement with David Ould on the issues involved.

I am curious, how would you characterize your over-all theological opinions. I never hesitate to identify myself as a Calvinist. I do not know him well, but I think that David Ould might well hesitate to employ such a term to describe his own theological opinion. However, in spite of such objections to the term as he might have, I think that most people would classify him as a Calvinist, of one sort or another… Your exegetical style is, in its own way, somewhat distinctive. And I sense some sort of theological slant at work in your reading of these texts. We ALL have our own theological slants, of course, and this—in and of itself—is not a bad thing… But I am curious to know a bit more about you and where you place yourself along the continuum of orthodox belief.

David Ould,

Off-thread for a moment… It suddenly occurs to me that YOU might know my friend Susan Blackburn—now married to Mike Griffith… If so, tell her that Matthew (and Lacey) send love to her and her family—and that we also very much want to know what her plans are for Christmas! We see her too infrequently.

—Matthew

David Ould,
Ok, I have offered several options to account for how everyone can still be in the grave awaiting the resurrection (according to the Scriptures) and yet some have temporary or “allegorical” encounters while still waiting.

Therefore, I ask what references in the Scriptures say all people ascend to heaven (or hell?) immediately upon death, when did their judgment occur, and who (if any) are still in their graves awaiting for a resurrection on Judgment Day.

If there are people in heaven now, will they be put back in their bodies and graves so they can experience a resurrection?  How cruel, and contrary to Scripture.

How can anyone be in heaven right now without having their whole family being united with them, if some (like us) are still living on earth right now?

This is not meant to be contentious, I am just trying to get to the nut of the discussion without a lot of verbage.

Masterserver, your argument concerning Jesus declaration to the thief on the cross falls flat because you deliberately misquote what Jesus said in Luke 23:43. You write: “Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Today, I tell you, you WILL (eventually) be with me in Paradise.” Forget the added word, eventually. The deception lies in the misrendering of the verse.Instead of Christ saying “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise.” (NASB), you make the verse read, “Today, I tell you..”. You-or anybody else-can go to Bible gateway, and/or search the many GOOD, RELIABLE Bible translations that you have on your bookshelf to see just how top experts in Biblical languages have translated Jesus words here. The NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, NCV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, Darbys, Youngs Literal,—A L L, without exception, render the verse the same: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”, if not in the precise wording, the EXACT same meaning. Unless you want to argue against the translating acumen of every pertinent translator from all these highly respected english scripture translations, your’ assersion on this point disintigrates.

MasterServer: I’m definitely NOT a trained theologian, but:

IMHO, you’ve reached an explanation of scripture which satisfies you. However, to do that you’ve had to effectively disregard other scriptures, which say something different, by relegating them to the status of visions or parables.

Nothing about the Transfiguration says it was only a vision, as others have stated, and the disciples who were there certainly reacted as though Moses and Elias were “real” persons. The simpler thing is that it was not a vision. Also, parables must be “true” or Jesus taught deception, and I have a hard time believing he deceived us. Therefore, Lazarus (or someone like him since this is a “story”) COULD have been in heaven in the bosom of Abraham, and the rich man in hell, and none were asleep. And yet there are other scriptures which show that the dead are asleep and unaware.

Since scripture does not contradict itself, both sets of scripture must be true without stretching things or downgrading one set.

I suggest that from God’s perspective it is simple to explain, but from ours it perhaps isn’t so simple. Phil’s explanation about time made sense to me, and someone else has said the same; other scenarios are possible. But one set of scriptures can’t be effectively ignored or the eventual understanding will be incomplete.

Me, I don’t have a concrete explanation, but I sense that yours doesn’t include properly all the factors. Nor do I think an answer is necessarily urgent, but the consideration does excite interest and encourage study of God’s Word… which is a Good Thing.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><

Bob K:
There were no commas in the original text. 

Therefore placing one here:
“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise.” (NASB),

could also be placed here:
“Truly I say to you today, you shall be with me in paradise.” 

This gives a consistentcy when Jesus tells Mary three days after the crucifixion, that He had not yet ascended, and therefore had not gone to Paradise that day with the thief.  But of course they would both eventually be in heaven.

Masterserver - I am quite well aware that there were no commas in the original texts. This still begs the question: Why then, have the most consecrated, capable Bible translators over the last century+ NEVER translated Christs words as you have here?  Oh, wait; there is one exception-the New World Translation, used by the Jehovahs Witnesses. As far as Jesus telling Mary that He had not yet asceded to the Father, this is correct; His resurrected BODY had not. Now, His Spirit had descended to Hades, to lead the captive OT righteous saints to heaven. (He would then give gifts to men on the day of Pentecost)(Eph. Eph 4:8).  Whether this leading had been done by His spirit, which had separated from His body at death, before reuniting with His body on the third day is not clear. It does not mean that the Lord of Life was unconsious somewhere. Rev. 6:9,11 is clear on this point: ” When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.” Clearly, they had been killed. They were quite concious and aware. And regardless of how you may want to argue about the term “under the alter”, it is irrelevent to the fact that these saints are in heaven. There is a clear juxtaposition of their location and the location of of those who killed them, ““How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” It is clear that their killers were on earth, whereas they were not. The Lord graciously gave them white robes to wear, while they waited for the reunification of their spirits with their resurrected bodies.

Do you see how DESPERATELY I squirm when light is cast on my shortcomings? 

Yes, I had noticed….

I wouldn’t worry so much. Matt makes the same mistake at 2 in the afternoon. 

Therefore, I ask what references in the Scriptures say all people ascend to heaven (or hell?) immediately upon death, when did their judgment occur, and who (if any) are still in their graves awaiting for a resurrection on Judgment Day.

I don’t think that there are any scriptures that defend that position since I don’t hold to it.

Can I make a gentle suggestion? Just because someone disagrees with your explanation of certain texts doesn’t mean that they actually hold the position that you are arguing against. That’s certainly the case here. Can I urge you to go back and respond to what people are actually saying, rather than assume their positions. I think we’d all find that more fruitful and, as another commenter pointed out, we’d love to here more of your more unique reading style.

Bob K,
Sir, I have made my case, and you agree that there were no commas in the original Greek, and you found at least one translation (without changing word order) which placed a comma where it supports the fact that Jesus had not yet ascended, as He said to Mary.

Jesus had to suffer DEATH for three days (as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights).  Did he not die?  Did he rise on the first day, or after three days?  Was He not obedient to death for three days?

And if He was dead for three days, He did not ascend (whether in the body or in the soul) on the first day, but after the third day. 

If He went and brought dead souls to heaven during the three day period when He had not yet ascended, then He would not have been the First Fruits.

For those under the altar, this occurred at the opening of the fifth seal on earth.  They were not in heaven, and the “altar” was a symbol for those who had been slain for the Word of God symbolic for those under the sacrificial element of faith.  And this is in the future - there are the dead still awaiting their time to come into heaven.  They have not yet ascended.  They are not yet even in heavenly bliss.

Now where is it in Scripture that says when we die, we go directly into heaven before Judgment Day?

To be continued - I am sure, but this is long enough for now.

David Ould,
Sorry, I cross posted without acknowledging your suggestion.  Thank you.

Can I urge you to go back and respond to what people are actually saying, rather than assume their positions. I think we’d all find that more fruitful

Bless you David Ould.  May we all apply this broadly.

Peace,

MasterServer: Must the dead who are present and aware in some way always be present in physical (resurrected) form?

Might it be possible that sometimes they are present physically, and other times spiritually, and yet other times not present at all but still aware? Moses and Elias were probably present physically, or at least their presence had signficant physical aspects, because of the disciples’ reaction to them. The cloud of witnesses in Heb 12:1 appear to be present spiritually (said because I’ve never seen one). And Lazarus, Abraham, and the rich man, weren’t present at all but were aware.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><

Masterserver,

I am reluctant to go into a technical description of how ancient Greek grammatically accomplished some of the things that we accomplish in modern English with the use of our comma, but the fact of the matter is that there are very good reasons for placing the comma in that particular place when translating this passage from Greek to English. Do you have some background in Greek? I have half-tempted to discuss the matter in depth. But I fear that such a discussion might be long and rather boring to most of the folks posting on this particular (and rather lively) thread. Such a discussion would almost certainly be completely arcane to people who have no working knowledge of Greek. And I am afraid that I am NOT a sufficiently gifted teacher, so as to make such a discussion relevant or meaningful to most of the people who are following this thread.

Having said this, however, let me assure you again that there are VERY GOOD reasons for placing the comma where it is always placed when properly translating this passage into English.

By the way, Bob K’s reference to The New World Translation was a JOKE… The text that he was referring to is NOT a translation of the Bible at all. It is a wildly inaccurate and baseless REWRITING of the Scriptures, put out by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to support their nutty ideas.

Well, Masterserver, I think we’ve about beat this to death. I’ll simply reply to the assertions made in your last post, then I’m not going to bother with this thread anymore. “you agree that there were no commas in the original Greek, and you found at least one translation (without changing word order) which placed a comma where it supports the fact that Jesus had not yet ascended, as He said to Mary.” What I said was that every english translation worth its salt does NOT translate Luke 23:43 in the manner that you do. If the unanimous opinion of the various greek scholars who produced the large number of highly regarded english Bible translations which I had listed in a previous post [I had listed 11, and I could have listed more] is that the PROPER translation of Luke 23:43 reads “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”, then I know that I am on safe ground linguistically here. The one translation that disagrees, the New World Translation, is unanimously regarded as being quite poor, with many bad, and a few deliberately misleading renderings-one of them being its rendering of Luke 23:43. As a translation, its at the very bottom of the heap, with its only adherents being the Jehovahs Witnesses.  “And if He was dead for three days, He did not ascend (whether in the body or in the soul) on the first day, but after the third day. If He went and brought dead souls to heaven during the three day period when He had not yet ascended, then He would not have been the First Fruits.” Read 1 Cor. 15 again. It wouldnt matter if the spirit [not body] of Jesus went down to hades and led the righteous up to heaven the first day OR the third day. 1 Cor. 15 declares that Christ is the firstfruits from the dead in regards to His bodily resurrection. That had nothing to do with His freeing the spirits of the righteous dead from Abrahams Bosom to heaven. Doesnt change one blessed thing about Christ being the firstfruits of the resurrection. As to your’ interpretation of Revelation 6:9; it is so far removed from the plain, obvious meaning of the text as it stands, that I regard it as fanciful. You are entitled to it. Finally, you ask: “Now where is it in Scripture that says when we die, we go directly into heaven before Judgment Day?” This has already been thoroughly, sufficiently answered in my previous posts. To answer it again would be superfluous. Oh; and your’ assertion that the transfiguration was merely a vision, and not an actual occurance? The Apostle Peter himself tells us differently: ” For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18).  Pax

bluenarrative,
I am not conversant in Greek, and have not desire to be.  Thank you for sparing me a technical lesson in ancient Greek.  I will accept your position of disagreement on the subject.  My brief response seems so cold when I see it in print.  Please be assured that I appreciate your offer, and the spirit in which it is offered.

Bob K,
Thank you for your response.  Obviously I have offended your, and for that, I appologize.