Death and Hell

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh my, a conundrum!!
Bodies that have become one with the earth will.............I DON'T KNOW!!! I'll have to take option 2, I guess.

This should keep us busy ... ... for a long time!

I love your answer. It's one of my favorites, and as it turns out, if you took the set of all possible questions, "I DON'T KNOW" would account for all answers except a set of measure zero. (Didn't your momma teach you never to discuss the Bible with a mathematician! )

Personally, I have always taken that "conundrum" as good reason to reject the literalist approach to the resurrection. There is no reason to assume that literal graves would open since most bodies aren't in graves anymore anyway.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It seems to me that the emphasis of "stand again".....anastasis (resurrection)....is that the body (however, or by whatever method of being in existence I have no idea as I cannot find in scripture any definitive explanation) is made to stand again.

I do not speculate on the process of God providing a body for me at that time.

Joel

OK - that's understandable.

But what then do you think about the idea that the so-called "resurrection" is not "physical" at all? If the language describing it is clearly non-literal (there will be no "bodies" literally "resurrected" and no "graves" literally "opened") then why not accept that the "resurrection body" will be a "spiritual body" just like Paul said?

1 Corinthians 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.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Here we see an explicit distinction between "natural bodies" made of "flesh and blood" that cannot inherit the kingdom, and "spiritual bodies" that do.

[Beck]

Here we see an explicit distinction between "natural bodies" made of "flesh and blood" that cannot inherit the kingdom, and "spiritual bodies" that do.

Richard, I'm not sure if you have, but I have encountered some [more than one] insist that 'natural bodies' don't equake to the physical body.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, I'm not sure if you have, but I have encountered some [more than one] insist that 'natural bodies' don't equake to the physical body.

Yep - I've seen that too from folks who are pushing for a "physical resurrection." But their logic is usually pretty weak and driven by a preconceived dogma as opposed to the text itself.

Is there a particular argument you have in mind?

[Beck]

Yep - I've seen that too from folks who are pushing for a "physical resurrection." But their logic is usually pretty weak and driven by a preconceived dogma as opposed to the text itself.

Is there a particular argument you have in mind?

No particular argument here, I just notice you used that verse and thought to ask. I may shoot you a pm with a link that address this topic.

[Beck]

I thought this maybe interesting for some of you. Billy Graham, Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, Florida, April 10, 1983... "I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched"

[Rose]

I thought this maybe interesting for some of you. Billy Graham, Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, Florida, April 10, 1983... "I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched"

When I first became a Christian over thirty years ago, the only way I could reconcile the idea of a place like Hell (which I never believed in anyway) was to think of it as separation from God, because that was peoples free choice.

Now, after giving myself the freedom to ask questions and diligently search for the answers, I know that the whole Hell idea is no more than a myth imported from the Greeks.

Rose

[Beck]

When I first became a Christian over thirty years ago, the only way I could reconcile the idea of a place like Hell (which I never believed in anyway) was to think of it as separation from God, because that was peoples free choice.

Now, after giving myself the freedom to ask questions and diligently search for the answers, I know that the whole Hell idea is no more than a myth imported from the Greeks.

Rose

Hi Rose,

How odd is that the church shallowed that up in their teachings and deny that it's a myth? It's really sad that we as students would have to dig our way out of many of the error that the church teaches us. And when someone like Billy Graham says otherwise he gets alot of heat for it, and even some call him a heretic.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,

How odd is that the church shallowed that up in their teachings and deny that it's a myth? It's really sad that we as students would have to dig our way out of many of the error that the church teaches us. And when someone like Billy Graham says otherwise he gets alot of heat for it, and even some call him a heretic.

Hi Beck

Having to dig for every last crumb of information is the problem I have with the entire Bible. Nothing is laid out in a simple and unambiguous fashion; everywhere one looks there are contradictions, misinformation, missing information and huge discrepancies. On top of that there are language issues, differences in customs, or even knowing what customs were practiced at the time, but I guess the biggest problem for me is that there are no reliable historical extra-biblical accounts in existence that can validate much of what is in the Bible. No wonder everyone has their own interpretation!

Rose

[CWH]

Hi Beck

Having to dig for every last crumb of information is the problem I have with the entire Bible. Nothing is laid out in a simple and unambiguous fashion; everywhere one looks there are contradictions, misinformation, missing information and huge discrepancies. On top of that there are language issues, differences in customs, or even knowing what customs were practiced at the time, but I guess the biggest problem for me is that there are no reliable historical extra-biblical accounts in existence that can validate much of what is in the Bible. No wonder everyone has their own interpretation!

Rose

The ambiguity of the BIble is of purpose, so that we toil to understand God better. He wants us to work together to understand HIm better. It's ok to have our own interpretations as afterall, we will know the truth when we meet Him. What God really want is not clear interpretation of his words but our faith, patience, love, trust and perseverence in Him. If not why did Jesu said symbolically and in parables. If God wanted us to understand Him clearly and easily, He would have aid plainly.

Many Blessings, Grace and Peace of God with you all. Amen.