Absent from the Body

[hobie]

2 Corinthians 5:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

We were studying how in the Bible how there are difficult passages and it made the following point. That no honest student of Scripture would deny the fact that there are things in the Bible that are difficult to understand, and this issue seems to be one of them, but lets take a look.There are many who ask if the text in 2 Corinthians 5:8 does not say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. One does not equal the other. Here is the verses from 2 Corinthians 5:1-8:

2 Corinthians 5:1-8 King James Version (KJV)
"1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

Paul appears to many people to be saying that something better than our current lives, namely being in the presence of God, awaits us after death. The language he uses seems to imply that life after death exists apart from our bodies and will continue on in spiritual form. To understand what Paul is saying, we must look at the comparison of being clothed as we go through the verses.

Paul introduces an earthly house and a heavenly house in verse 1, and in verse 2 states our condition while in the earthly house. He tells us in verse 2 and 3 what we desire in that state, to be "clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:" and "If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked". Paul in verse 4 then states the result of being clothed with the house from heaven. Now in verse 5 he says God "hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit", with "earnest" meaning a assurance or pledge. So the Spirit is pledge that mortality shall eventually be swallowed up of life. Verse 6, Paul states the grounds of his confidence, and verse 7 how a Christian should live. In verse 8, Paul just repeats a willingness to be absent from the body and to be with the Lord.

Paul uses clothing metaphors, and likens our existing mortal bodies with an "earthly house" or tent, and says we should not worry if it is destroyed because we have a building from God that awaits us. It doesn't say we will be in God's presence without a body; rather, Paul simply says we will not have this body. As we read in verse 4, Paul specifically says he does not want to be "unclothed" (without a body), but rather further clothed or different body. We currently wear a mortal body, but in God's presence after the resurrection we 'must put on' an immortal one.

So Paul is saying he prefers to be absent from the body which is the corrupted mortal one and present with the Lord when we will be clothed in a changed one, which we find is after the resurrection. When we stand in God's presence, we will not be in the same body we have now. The house from heaven is eternal or immortal and represents the state of immortality that awaits the redeemed beyond the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 King James Version (KJV)
"51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

 

[hobie]

Here is a great explanation on this.."
Now let us take note that Paul used an argument that forever precludes the doctrine of the soul going to heaven at death. In one simple statement, Paul shattered the popular argument for natural immortality. He said, “we… do groan that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” 2 Corinthians 5:4. Obviously, mortality can only be swallowed up by immortality, or eternal life. Is this the passing of the soul from the mortal body at the hour of death? Let us look at it. What is there about man, according to the common view, which is mortal? The body. In addition, what is immortal? The soul. Assuming for a moment that this is true, then what happens at death? At death the body, which is mortal, does not become immortal, but loses all its life and crumbles back to dust in the grave. Moreover, the soul, which was immortal before, is no more than immortal afterwards. Is there any “swallowing up of mortality by life” here? Just the reverse! Mortality, or the mortal part, is swallowed up by death! There is not as much life afterward as there was before, because after death only the soul lives, while the body which was alive before, is now dead. That view is in contradiction to what the Word of God actually says. We must reject it.

Paul knew the Corinthians would not be confused by his language in 2 Corinthians 5 about mortality being swallowed up by immortality, because he had already written his first epistle to them explaining when that immortality would be put on. “… in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump… this mortal must put on immortality. THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” 1 Corinthians 15:52-54. When would death or mortality be “swallowed up?” “THEN,” Paul said. When is THEN? “In the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.” How can anyone stumble over the plain language of these verses?

Paul was longing for that change from the earthly mortal body to the glorious immortal body. He stated that the change would take place on the resurrection-translation day. His chief hope seemed to center upon being translated without ever being “unclothed” in death. He yearned to “be clothed upon” by translation at the coming of Jesus, so that he be not found “naked” (in the grave). Translation would mean that mortality would be “swallowed up of life.”

Nevertheless, he hastened to express confidence, as we have just pointed out, in the certainty of a resurrection when death would be swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54). In either case, whether by translation or resurrection, he would be “clothed upon” with the immortal body. Either mortality would be “swallowed up” by being translated or death would be “swallowed up” by being resurrected.

Paul does not linger over the “unclothed” state, because his hopes rested in the new body to be received at Christ's coming. He could not be “forever with the Lord” until that change took place “in the twinkling of an eye.” The interim sleep of death in the grave held no appeal for Paul, since it would seem but a fractional second of utter oblivion to the one who died. Looking beyond the uninviting nakedness of death to the land of life, Paul ruled out any possibility of a state between death and the resurrection when disembodied spirits could be present with the Lord."...Absent From The Body | Free Book Library | Amazing Facts

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

It would seem that hobie is likening Paul’s stated situation to that of a child on Christmas Eve.

Over the years, many a child has been told, “The sooner you go to sleep, the sooner you’ll be opening your presents.”

==============================================================================================

Do any of the acknowledged creeds – creeds that are so important to so many organisations and to so many individuals – actually support what hobie has stated?

If so, which one(s), and what is its (their) actual wording?

==============================================================================================

 

[Lamb]

==============================================================================================

It would seem that hobie is likening Paul’s stated situation to that of a child on Christmas Eve.

Over the years, many a child has been told, “The sooner you go to sleep, the sooner you’ll be opening your presents.”

==============================================================================================

Do any of the acknowledged creeds – creeds that are so important to so many organisations and to so many individuals – actually support what hobie has stated?

If so, which one(s), and what is its (their) actual wording?

==============================================================================================

In order to be able to post in this section of the site, you need to adhere to the Nicene Creed and accept the trinity as part of the owner's wishes for the Christian Theology area here.

 

[Pedrito]

============================================================================

My thanks to Lämmchen for opening the door for me to present in a reasonably concise manner, some penetrating information regarding the officially reported development of the Trinity doctrine, versus its actual development. (See Post #4.) Note that my comments refer to the doctrine’s development process – not the doctrine itself. I emphasise that point, to preclude any illogical, tangential criticisms being levelled at me. (Space will prevent the presentation of all possible information.)

============================================================================

The First Council of Nicea (AD 325)

I hereby acknowledge that at the First Council of Nicea (AD 325), the Godhead was confirmed as being God the Father and Jesus – a Binity, not the Trinity. It grieves me that over the years, almost every church group I have had contact with, has deliberately and dishonestly promulgated the idea that the Trinity was established at that Council. A later creed, which had nothing to do with the Council of Nicea, was named “The Nicean Creed” in support of that totally unnecessary deception.

=============================================================================

The Definition ot the Trinity

According to the information I have (and I am open to logical, polite correction), the Definition of the Trinity first saw the light of day at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). When it was announced at that council, because none of the rank-and-file attendees had heard it before, many refused to believe it. To convince them, a supposed copy of that creed was supposedly retrieved from the archives pertaining to the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD).

Two problems exist with associating that Trinitarian creed with the 381 Council. The first is that the Council of Ephesus (431 AD, which was held after 381 AD) ratified the creed developed in 325 AD, and stated that no change to that creed could be entertained; the supposed creed of 381 was unknown. The second is, that in 381, all written reference to the creed attributed to 381 had to be hidden, and each and every delegate had to be forced to keep that creed a secret unto death.

=============================================================================

So we see that Orthodox Christian Truth was established in spite of the internal shenanigans of early Christendom. But established it finally was. Once again, the unnecessary duplicity (if I may use that term) of the situation leaves me grossly disturbed.

============================================================================

That is why I normally hesitate to make simple statements such as “I believe in the trinity,” or answer a simple “Yes” to the related question – I am concerned that I will be associated with the crass dishonesty of Christendom pointed out above.

For a similar reason, I hesitate to answer a simple “Yes” when I am asked if I am a Christian. I do not wish to be associated with the rampant, entrenched, God-demeaning, denominational loyalties that persist within present-day Christendom.

=============================================================================

I have ticked the appropriate box in my profile.

=============================================================================

 

[Lamb]

============================================================================

My thanks to Lämmchen for opening the door for me to present in a reasonably concise manner, some penetrating information regarding the officially reported development of the Trinity doctrine, versus its actual development. (See Post #4.) Note that my comments refer to the doctrine’s development process – not the doctrine itself. I emphasise that point, to preclude any illogical, tangential criticisms being levelled at me. (Space will prevent the presentation of all possible information.)

============================================================================

The First Council of Nicea (AD 325)

I hereby acknowledge that at the First Council of Nicea (AD 325), the Godhead was confirmed as being God the Father and Jesus – a Binity, not the Trinity. It grieves me that over the years, almost every church group I have had contact with, has deliberately and dishonestly promulgated the idea that the Trinity was established at that Council. A later creed, which had nothing to do with the Council of Nicea, was named “The Nicean Creed” in support of that totally unnecessary deception.

=============================================================================

The Definition ot the Trinity

According to the information I have (and I am open to logical, polite correction), the Definition of the Trinity first saw the light of day at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). When it was announced at that council, because none of the rank-and-file attendees had heard it before, many refused to believe it. To convince them, a supposed copy of that creed was supposedly retrieved from the archives pertaining to the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD).

Two problems exist with associating that Trinitarian creed with the 381 Council. The first is that the Council of Ephesus (431 AD, which was held after 381 AD) ratified the creed developed in 325 AD, and stated that no change to that creed could be entertained; the supposed creed of 381 was unknown. The second is, that in 381, all written reference to the creed attributed to 381 had to be hidden, and each and every delegate had to be forced to keep that creed a secret unto death.

=============================================================================

So we see that Orthodox Christian Truth was established in spite of the internal shenanigans of early Christendom. But established it finally was. Once again, the unnecessary duplicity (if I may use that term) of the situation leaves me grossly disturbed.

============================================================================

That is why I normally hesitate to make simple statements such as “I believe in the trinity,” or answer a simple “Yes” to the related question – I am concerned that I will be associated with the crass dishonesty of Christendom pointed out above.

For a similar reason, I hesitate to answer a simple “Yes” when I am asked if I am a Christian. I do not wish to be associated with the rampant, entrenched, God-demeaning, denominational loyalties that persist within present-day Christendom.

=============================================================================

I have ticked the appropriate box in my profile.

=============================================================================

Do you adhere to the Nicene Creed? It doesn't sound as if you do.