Life After Death???

[oldsailor29]

Let's suppose you wanted to give someone a Bible study from the point of view that the dead are conscious after death.

What are the main verses you would use? A good Bible study has anywhere between 10 and 20 Bible verses. What are the clearest verses you think teach the immortality of the soul and the consciousness of the dead?

I am not talented in giving Bible studies. And I'm sure the Bible does not fully support either the common Protestant, version, the Roman Catholic version, nor the SDA version of the state of the dead theology, but if you want a good exegesis on the realm of the dead, I have one which I can e-mail. It is too long for posting. But it is an easy read. No? I didn't think so.

The Bible study you are asking me to produce would be counterproductive, because it would point out an error in ancient theology. Before solid faith is established, discovery of an error in the Bible might be very discouraging. Any Bible study I would produce now would be on the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus says if we study His teachings, and fill ourselves with them, we will live forever. Jesus said that some of the people who were there listening to Him would not see death. Well, they all died. But if we believe Jesus, it has to mean that at some level, those people, even though they died, are still living.

And I think we must believe in Jesus, and I think one quote from Him is all I need to trump everything in all the rest of the Bible.

Have faith in Him

Who calmed the mighty sea.

Have faith in Him

Who made the blind to see.

Have faith in Him

Who died for you and me.

Have faith dear friend, in Him.

[jasd]

>>Your point is well taken, jasd. I should try to contribute something well-considered and well-documented to the discussion.<<

Why well-documented? That is a way-too-much-parochial-disposition. Where would we be without the sorts of dogmas one so consistently run into? in the world of the practical, the sciences – as well, that Biblical...

>>However I always keep in mind the adage "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."<<

Oh Planey, gyve me a fryykin’ bryyk! do you not yet realize that I do not give a rat’s fundament should someone think me fool or no? My opinion of myself precludes such plebian idiosyncrasies...

Besides, have on – I would never either intimate or think you fool; characterizes all too much the common.

>>PS

You should also be careful jasd as you are not exempt from making the occasional contribution to the bovis fimus.<<

The austral sort, yes? Anyway, I concede that I also deal in bulldust, and more than occasionally; however most of my bulldust is query-punctuated. Then again, que sera... there is not that much expectation re words in droughty places, yes?

I gather that you are somewhat on par with me age-wise (no pun), so, I ask, “How is it that your propensity to snideness is so pronounced?” Compulsion? :-o

Serenity, Planey.

[John317]

I am not talented in giving Bible studies.

OK, then, forget the Bible study. :-)

What verses do you believe are the clearest in teaching that the dead are conscious or that the soul survives death.

Quote:

And I'm sure the Bible does not fully support either the common Protestant, version, the Roman Catholic version, nor the SDA version of the state of the dead theology, but if you want a good exegesis on the realm of the dead, I have one which I can e-mail. It is too long for posting. But it is an easy read. No? I didn't think so.

Sure, I'll read anything about the Bible. Send it on. Go to my profile page to see my email address.

Quote:

The Bible study you are asking me to produce would be counterproductive, because it would point out an error in ancient theology. Before solid faith is established, discovery of an error in the Bible might be very discouraging. Any Bible study I would produce now would be on the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus says if we study His teachings, and fill ourselves with them, we will live forever. Jesus said that some of the people who were there listening to Him would not see death. Well, they all died.

Are you sure Jesus is saying they won't die the first dead-- which is a sleep? Do you think it is possible he was saying his true followers won't die eternal death? Isn't that the only one that truly matters? This first one is death but it is really a sleep because we will be awakened. But if a person dies the second death, that death is one which will be endless.

Quote:

But if we believe Jesus, it has to mean that at some level, those people, even though they died, are still living.

Jesus indicated elsewhere that "to God" Abraham is alive. That is the same for all of the saved. To God they are alive, because God lives in the eternal present. The resurrection is as good and certain as if it has already taken place. As we said before, we are alive in God's mind and in His memory, as well as in His view of the future. In a sense we were alive in God's mind before we were born.

[oldsailor29]

Sure, I'll read anything about the Bible. Send it on. Go to my profile page to see my email address.

Done. Let me know if there are any problems with the e-mail.

[BobRyan]

John says he saw the souls of the martyrs under the altar, crying to God for vengeance on their murderers. That does not sound like unconsciousness to me.

That is very true. Souls that cry out -- like the blood of Abel in Heb 12 that crys out - are not described in a "dormant state".

Those are descriptions of an awake and active state - but they are both symbols. Just as no one believes that your blood is it's own individual person that can cry when spilled on the ground (in this case still crying as Paul speaks about it 4000 years later) -- so also the apocalyptic emagery of souls "all under the altar" crying - is not meant to be taken literally.

But you are right about that NOT being the dormant "sleep" state that the rest of the Bible describes -- nor that Jesus describes for the person Lazarus in His "Lazarus sleeps I go that I may WAKE HIM" John 11 statement.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Sure, I'll read anything about the Bible. Send it on. Go to my profile page to see my email address.

Done. Let me know if there are any problems with the e-mail.

I have everything except part 3. It will take me a while to read all of it. Thanks. Looks interesting.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Does anyone other than myself find the appeal to the dialectic ‘metaphor and context’ arrogant, where or whenever Writ conflicts with .orgism dogma? This often-utilized recourse seems awfully to limit the power of Gd. Example:

Gen 4:10 ...the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

It is suggested that – as it is impossible for us to hear blood cry-out from its spill – it must be likewise with Gd. I believe that our science and experience as pertain Gd is immeasurably small in scope, and when He informs us that ‘blood crieth from the ground’ – it must be so; moreover, I submit that

Abel’s blood did not simply cry out but – screamed! ...and Gd heard.

[Ted Oplinger]

Hmmmmm....

Yes, there are many Christian groups that believe they speak from "the Bible and the Bible alone", yet when pressed on many particular points - like the 7th-day Sabbath, the state of the dead (and others), they go back to the traditions of their particular denomination/group, rather than going back to the Bible and Bible alone.

It is a telling point that the Catholic church (the irony is delicious) has for decades been our best witness concerning both the Sabbath and the state of the dead, when they flatly state that people declaring the Bible only to be their guide will be Seventh-day Adventist in faith.

That brings me to the state of the dead.

If what happens at death (=wages of sin) is NOT "soul sleep" (as some phrase it), then what is the alternative? Man has an immortal "soul" - meaning we have life intrinsic to ourselves, and not borrowed from a loving Creator.

The belief man has life intrinsic to himself is a false belief going all the way back to the first recorded blatant contradiction of God's Word by a sentient being - Genesis 3:4. Who made that contradiction? Satan, whom Christ said was a liar from the beginning.

God declares through the prophet Ezekiel, "The soul that sins shall die.", not "live forever in undesireable consequences" "or "given as many reincarnations as necessary to get it right".

Who's right? God, or Satan?

At what point is one truly "dead"? When they don't have a body to play around in? Or when they have no existence in any part of God's Creation?

Do we believe what the Bible says about what happens at death? or do we play word games with the words, "soul", and "spirit" to get back to a comforting tradition (as many who contend they "preach the Bible" in fact truly do)?

Next, look at the cross...and ask yourself this question:

Did Jesus suffer the due stroke for sin?

If what happens at death is "soul sleep", and if the wages of sin is death, then yes, He did. Then what of the alternative?

If there is some sort of "life" after the death of the body, then no, Christ did not, for Christ is not suffering the continuing punishing of the wicked immortal souls in undesireable consequences, nor was He born re-incarnated as a new and different person (as the Hindu/Buddhist faiths define re-incarnation). The wages of sin for the wicked (some sort of eternal punishing) becomes not death, but something Christ did not suffer (for instance, burning in hell for all eternity, as Catholics and many "Protestants" would think).

The justice of God becomes suspect (double standards), as well as the truthfulness of God (lying and deception concerning what happens at death).

I find true what others before have found to be true: Life from lifelessness is an act of Creation (Genesis 1:26,27). Death, being the exact opposite process, is un-Creation: going from life to lifelessness (Palms 104:29, Ecclestiastes 3:20 and 12:6,7).

If a person has ANY kind of faculty whereby they may perceive and/or interact with any part of God's creation (whether in our world, in heaven, or in a speculatory other-dimensional "spirit world" - it matters not), then they posses some degree of life - they are not truly lifeless, as death requires.

Those mentioned who are in heaven are alive - in bodily form: Enoch and Elijah (translation), Moses and others (resurrection). God is not God of the dead, but of the living, Christ states explicitly.

[True-believer]

Is there life after death?

YES!!!

I have some Biblical evidence that from death we go straight to heaven, well, our spirit will go straight to heaven to be with God.

Soul-sleep is garbage!!!

Let me know if you want me to present my case? Are you ready for it?

[Robert]

Soul-sleep is garbage!!!

Huh..., I disagree. The main reason? Because the teachings of the immortality of the soul/spirit renders the gospel useless.

Go to Romans 5:10

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God [past tense] through the death of His Son

I'm sure you've heard fellow Christians ask, "when did you get saved", right? My question has always been, "saved from what?"

Well the answer is "the curse of the law" -- the 2nd death. In the curse of the law God abandons you and therefore the source of your resurrection is forever gone. Your death is permanent.

You see God created everything "under law". The angels are "under law". By that I don't mean rules written on stone. No, I'm talking about the law of agape (selflessness). The minute you introduce the principle of "self" (self-love) that moment you come under the curse.

Let's go to Gal 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law [salvation by law] are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

If you want life by law you must do all that is written in the law and perfectly at that.

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, [how?] having become a curse for us....

So God's law demands our death. We must die. You see God's not going to do away with "agape" (the law that His government is under). So legally speaking He had to do away with us. How God did this is called the gospel:

Please remember that Christ is God - He is Deity. At the incarnation God blended the Deity of Christ with the humanity in Mary's womb. So Deity took humanity upon itself. That humanity, which is our humanity, had to die. Did it?

"One (Christ as the son of man) died for all, therefore all died" 2 cor 5:14

"We know that our old self [our life under the curse of the law] was crucified with him...." Rom 6:6

"You also died to the law [it demanded your death] through the body of Christ" Romans 7:4

So clearly our humanity, which Christ assumed at the incarnation, died because the law demanded our death. So "in Christ" we have died the death it requires, i.e., the 2nd death. Hence, "we have now been justified by his blood" (His life, which is our life, laid down in death). Therefore, "we were reconciled to [God] through the death of his Son."

Now if our humanity didn't really die "in Christ" then we really aren't justified and still stand under the law. To be under law as sinners brings death....

So the immortality of the soul places us back under the curse of the law because we really never died in the body of Christ - i.e., we really never died the death that the law requires.

Rob

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Ted Oplinger

>>It is a telling point that the Catholic church (the irony is delicious) has for decades been our best witness concerning both the Sabbath and the state of the dead, when they flatly state that people declaring the Bible only to be their guide will be Seventh-day Adventist in faith. [ed.jasd]

I’d appreciate that reference.

>>If what happens at death (=wages of sin) is NOT "soul sleep" (as some phrase it), then what is the alternative? Man has an immortal "soul" - meaning we have life intrinsic to ourselves, and not borrowed from a loving Creator.<<

The above reflects the status quo in the .Org’s thinking; that is, it fails to make a distinction between what obtained before the crucifixion and that which obtains afterward.

>>The belief man has life intrinsic to himself is a false belief going all the way back to the first recorded blatant contradiction of God's Word by a sentient being - Genesis 3:4. Who made that contradiction? Satan, whom Christ said was a liar from the beginning.<<

And Gd made the contradistinction as pertains man having a spirit separate from his tabernacle of flesh – as in the writings of His prophet Moses in Genesis 15:9-18.

>>God declares through the prophet Ezekiel, "The soul that sins shall die.", not "live forever in undesireable consequences" "or "given as many reincarnations as necessary to get it right".<<

A coupla things: Gd informs us that the soul can be sundered/cleaved from the spirit. Wha’s that?

And, Jesus Christ amplified with His oft-repeated-here statement in John 11:26, “Whosoever [now] lives and [now] believes in me – shall never (in the emphatic double negative) die.”

>>Who's right? God, or Satan?<<

If, as has been suggested here in this forum, that Jesus Christ by His pronouncement in John 11:26 – simply was stating that man shall live again – in the resurrection; then we, using the same logic, must admit that it is Satan who is right (Gd as well ,of course) to a point, and his use of surely ought to be parsed as meaning... “In that you may be resurrected, you shall not surely die.”

Quote:

Quote:Ted Oplinger

If what happens at death (=wages of sin) is NOT "soul sleep" (as some phrase it),

‘To sleep’ or ‘to die’? ahh, may it be that I should neither sleep nor die but that I should, as the friend of Lazarus spake – pass from life unto life; and, having shed this tabernacle of corruption, take up the righteousness of Him who overcame that I might be glorified and thus be ever clothed... Too jasdean? It is scriptural.

Gd was right, and we ought to again, parse die as to meaning... rather to understanding.

>>At what point is one truly "dead"? When they don't have a body to play around in? Or when they have no existence in any part of God's Creation?<<

Good question. When you have the answer, let me know.

>>Do we believe what the Bible says about what happens at death? or do we play word games with the words, "soul", and "spirit" to get back to a comforting tradition (as many who contend they "preach the Bible" in fact truly do)?<<

The specific and exact ‘truth’ of the matter may be only found somewhere in between the extremes of dogma. Then again, mebbe if we actually begin to appreciate the distinction made by Gd as to the difference between the soul and the spirit

we may more readily apprehend that which actually occurs at the demise of our earthly tabernacle. Besides,

of what does Holy Writ bespeak when referencing the “inner man”?

>>Next, look at the cross...and ask yourself this question:

Did Jesus suffer the due stroke for sin?<<

Indeed, yes.

>>If there is some sort of "life" after the death of the body, then no, Christ did not,<<

But He did, inasmuch as was required of Gd – for the redemption of man. You yourself validate this somewhat in the below following, with the supposition that Moses was ‘bodily’ alive in heaven prior to the crucifixion.

>>...for Christ is not suffering the continuing punishing of the wicked immortal souls in undesireable consequences, nor was He born re-incarnated as a new and different person (as the Hindu/Buddhist faiths define re-incarnation). The wages of sin for the wicked (some sort of eternal punishing) becomes not death,<<

“In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Yet Adam lived more than nine-hundred years longer. What did Gd mean by “In the day ... thou shalt surely die”? The foregoing begs the question again, how is death Biblically defined?

>>I find true what others before have found to be true: Life from lifelessness is an act of Creation (Genesis 1:26,27).<<

If it is that creation is such a thing so stupendous that it may have only derived from an act of Gd, why is it that there are those who cannot bring themselves to believe that Gd could create greater than this earthly life? such as a continuing spirit? divested from the encumbrance of common carnality...

>>Death, being the exact opposite process, is un-Creation: going from life to lifelessness (Palms 104:29, Ecclestiastes 3:20 and 12:6,7).<<

Did you notice that the above references are OT? Can we not derive fresh meaning from the event which can only be described as the most prodigious between, let’s say, cosmic adversaries; that is, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Gd?

>>Those mentioned who are in heaven are alive - in bodily form: Enoch and Elijah (translation), Moses and others (resurrection). God is not God of the dead, but of the living, Christ states explicitly.<<

Begging to disagree. It was Jesus Christ who informed us that “...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (Jn 3:13)

By your own dialogic points, you cannot have had Moses in heaven prior to the crucifixion.

A slight emendation: well, having said the above, I must concur that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses - though not having ascended aforehand the crucifixion - are, in liklihood, presently with the Lord Jesus Christ...

[jasd]

>>Let me know if you want me to present my case? Are you ready for it?<<

Please, submit any/all input.

[jasd]

The quantum face of teleportation:

Everything changed in 1993, when scientists at IBM, led by Charles Bennett, showed that it was physically possible to teleport objects, at least at the atomic level, using the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) experiment. (More precisely, they showed that you teleport all the information contained within a particle.) Since then physicists have been able to teleport photons and even entire cesium atoms. Within a few decades scientists may be able to teleport the first DNA molecule and virus.

Quantum teleportation exploits some of the more bizarre properties of the EPR experiment. In these teleportation experiments physicists start with two atoms, A and C. Let’s say we wish to teleport information from atom A to atom C. We begin by introducing a third atom, B, which starts out being entangled with C, so B and C are coherent. Now atom A comes in contact with atom B. A scans B, so that the information contents of atom A is transferred to atom B. A and B become entangled in the process. But since B and C were originally entangled, the information within A has now been transferred to atom C. In conclusion, atom A has now been teleported into atom C, that is, the information content of A is now identical to that of C.

Notice that the information within atom A has been destroyed (so we don’t have two copies after the teleportation). This means that anyone being hypothetically teleported would die in the process. But the information content of his body would appear elsewhere. Notice also that atom A did not move to the position of atom C. On the contrary, it is the information within A (e.g., its spin and polarization) that has been transferred to C. (This does not mean that atom A was dissolved ant then zapped to another location. It means that the information content of atom A has been transferred to another atom, C.)

[...] --Michio Kaku

[ed.jasd]

Needless to say, since those first experiments, we’ve highly improved upon the technology – being able to teleport macroscopically, for instance – trillions upon trillions of atoms... at a time. How much more macroscopically could a/the (G)od take one’s information (spirit) and transfer/cloth it elsewhere?

[BobRyan]

1. That process is not what we usually mean by "teleport". In the case above - no matter is teleported and Atom C still has to "travel" at the snails pace of sublight speed to wherever you want the end-point of information to go. It is as much "teleport" as a phone line is "teleporting your voice". The propagation of the "information but not matter" is the same in both cases -- only the medium of information propagation has changed.

So while that is a great example of using the new medium of instantaneous-transport via "Action at a Distance" - it is not the "teleport" that we normally think of where A itself goes from point B to point C in an instant.

Of course it has a great use in "communication" for example - if we had a probe on Mars or in deep space -- and it had a memory stick that was cloned (entangled) with a stick on earth. Then transferring data instantly to and from the spacecraft would be possible. No time delay. It would also work that way for the ship's video camera if the recording disc or memory chip were cloned-entangled with a partner on earth. Instant video feed from unlimitted distance (limitted only by the snails-pace time it takes for your space ship to get to the target).

2. It also exposes the problem of "resurrection" - if as many SDAs have supposed you ARE your body instead of you HAVE a body. Because body-copying is then nothing more than "duplicating" people it is not "reviving" or "resurrection" someone who has died -- rather it is construction of someone else entirely who happens to have your old memories.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

>>1. That process is not what we usually mean by "teleport".<<

That is why it is posted as the “...quantum face of teleportation” I posted that one might encounter similitudes.

>>In the case above - no matter is teleported and Atom C still has to "travel" at the snails pace of sublight speed to wherever you want the end-point of information to go.<<

Try Googling ‘speed of light cesium gas’. Other than that, an anomaly arises in certain experiments where speed of light is exceeded exceedingly – with the ‘object’ arriving, as it were, before being sent...

The article posited that “information” entangled with C (implicit, instantaneous) – rather than C “traveling” anywhere. Anyway, let’s try a hypothesis: what if information needed only to “travel” through a ‘veil’ consisting of just a few clicks of the frequency needle? So close that Elisha’s servant merely had to have his eyes opened to see ‘the other side’...

How far is far under those circumstances?

>>It is as much "teleport" as a phone line is "teleporting your voice". The propagation of the "information but not matter" is the same in both cases -- only the medium of information propagation has changed.<<

It is important to remember that the information between A, B, and C is a matter of entanglement; that is instantaneous entanglement – and not so much that of transport.

>>So while that is a great example of using the new medium of instantaneous-transport via "Action at a Distance" - it is not the "teleport" that we normally think of where A itself goes from point B to point C in an instant.<< [ed.jasd]

Try rereading the snippet I provided. “A” dies, it is destroyed, corrupted – entirely. Only its essence, its information, that becomes entangled with C – instantly ‘clothed’ with C, as it were. B is simply the means by which A becomes entangled with C. It bears similarity to that described in Writ, that is,

‘the inner man, the spirit, the intrinsic self, the constituent man’ – absent from the body tabernacle (which dies) is to be present with the Lord; that is, life passing into life, not as though being unclothed (nakedly dead), but ‘clothed/entangled’, as it were...

>>Of course it has a great use in "communication" for example - if we had a probe on Mars or in deep space -- and it had a memory stick that was cloned (entangled) with a stick on earth. Then transferring data instantly to and from the spacecraft would be possible. No time delay. It would also work that way for the ship's video camera if the recording disc or memory chip were cloned-entangled with a partner on earth. Instant video feed from unlimitted distance (limitted only by the snails-pace time it takes for your space ship to get to the target).<<

Not a matter of cloning, or transport, or travel – but of an instantaneous “entanglement” across near and unimaginable reaches of space/time. [/paraphrased as distant memory permits]

>>2. It also exposes the problem of "resurrection" - if as many SDAs have supposed you ARE your body instead of you HAVE a body. Because body-copying is then nothing more than "duplicating" people it is not "reviving" or "resurrection" someone who has died -- rather it is construction of someone else entirely who happens to have your old memories.<<

Indeed, in a word, the body serves as a vehicle for the ‘inner man’. What should concern the Bible reader is: we know the earthly tabernacle of man dies, but does the ‘inner man’ die? or ‘sleep’? as he supposedly did pre-crucifixion...

I submit that post-crucifixion man ‘entangled/clothed’ in glory – enhances the idea of him endued with the glory of his ‘entangles/clothed’ self permeating the resurrected body and, in fact, reflecting man’s original condition, pre-fall.

[BobRyan]

Try Googling ‘speed of light cesium gas’. Other than that, an anomaly arises in certain experiments where speed of light is exceeded exceedingly – with the ‘object’ arriving, as it were, before being sent...

[jasd]

>>"Before being sent" - would mean something other than just linear speed past the speed of light.<<

Indeed, as it were.

>>It is instanteous information transfer -- but the transfer point is fixed -- it is "C" and wherever C happens to have traveled in it's snail's pace life time. So if you put C on your rocket and send it out into space for a few years -- then scan "B" with A -- the information in A will go to wherever "C" (at it's snails pace of travel) happens to be at that instant.<<

Why might one assume that C “traveled” at a snail’s pace? What if C had the characteristics of X, Y, or Z and/or was laser-pulsed through such as cesium gas? Or “C” was Gd, “B” Jesus Christ, and A you or me?

>>It is therefore instantaneous information transfer - but no matter is being teleported.<<

Indeed, as suggested, what we might think matter, “dies”.

>>I don't see the relationship between frequency and angels because we can already set EM frequency detectors all over the band and we are not seeing angels.<<

Believing that everything has its specific frequency, I was attempting to draw a correlation that might indicate a separation between, as you note, “dimensions” separated by frequencies, ‘veils’, as it were – or a correlation to beings whose vibrations are beyond our ability to [currently] apprehend...

It may prove interesting to some: years ago it was noted that discarded newspapers would ‘photograph’ (or ‘print’) a shadow of whatever lay between it and sunlight for a period of time. It might be noticed that the earliest attempts at photography were of still, inanimate objects – buildings and other immovable objects – the exposure time of the ‘plates’ precluded movement. As photographic technology advanced, it was noted that should the exposure be of a church on a Sunday morning – movement of groups of people gathered in conversation whilst departing – showed faintly on the developed film. [fast forward...] As extremes of sensitivity of film permitted – extraordinarily fast shutters were developed that matched the film... The marriage between films of heightened sensitivity and extraordinarily fast shutter speeds has created the curious anomaly of ‘ghosts’ in the developed film – as though the film was double-exposed...

It is almost as though we begin to glimpse ‘the other side’ – as though through a rent ‘veil’...

>>I don't think the angel thing is a function of light wave frequency.<<

...may prove interesting: Gd declares that Judah would always have light. Gd also decreed that Judah pitch his tents upon the Cardinal point of the congregation on the East side – toward the light of the rising sun. “All that were numbered in the camp of Judah [were] a hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred*, throughout their armies. ...” (Numbers 2:9)

*186,400. (speed of light in miles per second: 186,+/-300)

Mebbe, Gd, throughout Writ, has been trying to tell us sumfin’?

[jasd]

>>I think it is a function of dimensions and something more like string theory.<<

Indeed.

>>Actually - A exists - it's information is changed (spin and direction) but the atom - mass and chemical property -- remains the same, having the same number of neutrons, protons and electrons. This is why (for example) when "B" and "C" are entangled - you can still have "B" hanging around to then be entangled with "A" -- instead of having matter destroyed "B" -- when "B" and "C" are initially entangled.<<

That may be, however, I am constrained to concur with Kaku and others – for among other reasons – this EPR paradox does not seem to lend itself overmuch to mimeography, or simple duplication. There seems to be implied – a change of state tandem entanglement.

>>Which by the way - brings up the interesting topic of what might have taken place in the so-called "Big Bang" --- was there are LOT of matter "entangled" at that point such that today distant atoms all the way across the universe are still entangled "With us" or with some part of our planet (some unique compound)?<<

Might that fact contribute, just a bit, towards a better understanding of...? following:

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

>>2. It also exposes the problem of "resurrection" - if as many SDAs have supposed you ARE your body instead of you HAVE a body. Because body-copying is then nothing more than "duplicating" people it is not "reviving" or "resurrection" someone who has died -- rather it is construction of someone else entirely who happens to have your old memories.<<

Writ is explicit re the resurrection of the body --(cf Job...).

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Indeed, in a word, the body serves as a vehicle for the ‘inner man’. What should concern the Bible reader is: we know the earthly tabernacle of man dies, but does the ‘inner man’ die? or ‘sleep’? as he supposedly did pre-crucifixion...

>>Paul says "yes" in 1Thess 4.<<

St Paul makes three specific references in 1 Thessalonians 4, namely, Christ, Jesus, and the Lord Gd –with each attending a unique aspect of the three parts re the saints...

/ those who are dead in Christ [the promise]

/ those who sleep in Jesus [the realization]

/ those remaining alive at the Parousia

(Naturally, the exception would be – re the ‘dead in Christ’ – the first fruits, post-crucifixion)

Granted, there are differences as to how one might receive St Paul’s exposition re the matter; however, there ought not to be none re the disposition of man as delineated by Jesus Christ in the book of St John, chapter 11, verses 23 through 26.

A careful reading harmonizes 1 Thessalonians 4 and John 11.

>>The spirit or in some contexts "soul" survives death by going back to God who gave it -- but as 1Thess 4 and 1Cor 15 say -- it is in a dormant state of "sleep".<<

Of course, my read of the relevant passages provided by St John in the book of Revelation, does not allow agreement with the above assessment. Moreover, “sleep”, post-crucifixion, is utilized euphemistically. :-)

[Ted Oplinger]

jasd,

Sorry to have been a bit long away from this thread, it seems to have wandered away from our previous discussion.

Per your request, jasd, here are a few quotes I've found:

Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.

Source: The Pastor's page of the Sentinel, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.

"Ques. --(a) The Bible says, 'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord,' and we read in your literature that it is the only Bible Sabbath there is. Will you please explain how the Sunday observance originated? ( Do you think the Seventh-day Adventists keep the right day?

Ans. --"If you follow the Bible alone there can be no question that you are obliged to keep Saturday holy, since that is the day especially prescribed by Almighty God to be kept holy to the Lord. In keeping Sunday, non-Catholics are simply following the practise of the Catholic Church for 1800 years, a tradition, and not a Bible ordinance. What we would like to know is: Since they deny the authority of the Church, on what grounds can they base their faith of keeping Sunday. Those who keep Saturday, like the Seventh-day Adventists, unquestionably have them by the hip in this practise. And they cannot give them any sufficient answer which would satisfy an unprejudiced mind. With the Catholics there is no difficulty about the matter. For, since we deny that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we can fall back upon the constant practise and tradition of the Church."

Source: Francis George Lentz, The Question Box. 1900, p. 98-99 [Lentz, who died in 1917, was an Illinois Catholic priest].

"Ques. --What Bible authority is there for changing the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week? Who gave the Pope the authority to change a command of God?

"Ans. --If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right, in observing the Saturday with the Jew . . . Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher, should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?"

Source: Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, 1903 ed., pp. 254-255; 1915 ed., p. 179 [Conway (1872-1959) was a Paulist father in the Catholic Church].

"The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of day from the seventh to the first . . . Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."

Source: Catholic Mirror, September 2 and December 23, 1893 [The Catholic Mirror, a Baltimore journal was at this time the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons].

A couple are old hat references known in Adventist circles for years. The first one - very recent, is quite new to me, but is agreement with over 100 years of previous thought.

It seems the Catholic Mirror out of Baltimore ran a series of articles over a hundred years ago, challenging the Protestant world on the Sabbath/Sunday issue. It was kept and re-printed by the Herald and Review under the title, "Rome's Challenge".

While not feigning their errors, they also aren't flinching what it means to use Sola Scriptura, either. The choice is to either join the Seventh-day Adventist Church (with all its own warts and all) or join the Roman Catholic Church. There will be no ultimate "in-between".

Quote:

And Gd made the contradistinction as pertains man having a spirit separate from his tabernacle of flesh – as in the writings of His prophet Moses in Genesis 15:9-18.

Hmmmm....

Here's Genesis 15:9-18

9 So He said to him, "Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds.

11 The birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.

12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him.

13 God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.

14 "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.

15 "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.

16 "Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.

18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

The only thing dead in that passage is the offering Abram made to God. There's nothing concerning life after death, nor a contradistinction between a human spirit and the tabernacle of flesh.

Abram did fall asleep on God, and had a very terrifying vision as he slept...but Abraham didn't die.

Quote:

A coupla things: Gd informs us that the soul can be sundered/cleaved from the spirit. Wha’s that?

And, Jesus Christ amplified with His oft-repeated-here statement in John 11:26, “Whosoever [now] lives and [now] believes in me – shall never (in the emphatic double negative) die.

First, the process of building life - found in Genesis 2:7, where God is seen molding man from the dust of the earth, breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and man becomes a living soul. From non-existence, God brings man into existence.

We don't have a soul occupying a body, we have a soul which is the product of a body plus the breath of life.

This breath of life is later in Genesis called "spirit" in reference to all that which died in the Flood...

Genesis 7:21,22 "All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit [ruach] of life, died."

I do not see anywhere in Scripture where "spirit" is consistently and unequivocally given the sentient properties of thought, emotion, apart from the product of body+breath of life = living soul.

I do see in Psalms 146:4 that princes of the flesh aren't to be depended upon for at death, "His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish."

Yes, the spirit departs, but what good to a person is it if that spirit has no cognitive abilities? No body, no life, no soul. Non-existence.

There are three references to what happens at death in Ecclesiastes - 3:20, 21, 9:4-6, and 12:7. Standard SDA texting on the subject, and each repeats one part or another that which is written in Psalms 146:4.

As for John 11:26...isn't that in the context of Lazarus' death??

And doesn't that need to be read in the context of what He said in the verse just before 26? Which goes something like...

25,26: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Keeping the subject of what happens at death in the context of the Scriptures, either Christ is talking nonsense, or He is clearly communicating a great truth - believing Christ is the resurrection and the life will trump the return to non-existence which comes at death: the believer will close his/her eyelids in death, only to hear in the next instant Christ calling him/her awake.

It's interesting to me that people like to use this passage in support of life after death, because taking the whole story into account, life after death cannot be corroborated by Lazarus' own testimony to that effect. In short, God could have ended the argument before it started with a short testimony from Lazarus as to his after-life experience. Given what Scriptures earlier said about the life-building and dying processes, the absence of Lazarus' life after death experience I must take to mean he was dead, with no thoughts, no zeal, no emotion, and no recollection of time passing while he was dead.

And this was a believer - and friend - of Christ.

Quote:

The specific and exact ‘truth’ of the matter may be only found somewhere in between the extremes of dogma. Then again, mebbe if we actually begin to appreciate the distinction made by Gd as to the difference between the soul and the spirit

Yes, I can appreciate the distinction there. The most often word for soul in the OT WAS "nephesh" - the word used there in Gen. 2:7 for what man became after creation.

The most often referenced word for "spirit" in the OT was "ruach" - the word referenced in Gen. 7, Psalms 146, and 2 of the examples in Ecclesiastes (Ch. 3 and 12).

A detailed listing of the occurrences of "ruach" will also show many things can be done with the "spirit" - the "ruach" can be sorrowed, saddened, annoyed, knit together with others, praising God, magnified, exalted...but always in the context of participating in a living body (body+spirit = soul).

Quote:

Begging to disagree. It was Jesus Christ who informed us that “...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (Jn 3:13)

You can disagree if that's your choice, but God clearly took both Enoch (pre-Flood) into heaven by direct translation. Likewise, the prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven by a chariot of fire shortly after the Mt. Carmel experience. Christ words about ascending into heaven I take to mean no man works/earns his way there on his own merits. Enoch and Elijah are in heaven solely due to their faith in Christ.

As for Moses...by my points, I certainly can put Moses in heaven, as he was resurrected from death (like Lazarus - before the cross), then translated there. Otherwise, what will you do with the Mt. of Transfiguration, where both Moses and Elijah are seen bodily next to Christ?

All in all...if you really want to get to the brass tacks of, time has meaning only for us who are alive. The life after death thing is something to make us comfortable about the passing of friends and loved ones. It doesn't do a thing for those who can no longer think or praise God.

From the perspective of the dying: they feel the sting of death, they close their eyes. Darkness takes over.

In the next instance, they hear the voice of Christ calling them to awaken from death. From that perspective, they're apparently going either straight to Christ (or straight to judgment), as they have not seen any time passing by them. It will very much appear to them they have died, and gone straight to heaven or to judgment.

All that, even if hundreds or even thousands of years have passed in "normal" time flow...

Gotta roll!

[Ted Oplinger]

Got to read the rest of the thread after posting...Interesting concept/application of the theories for teleportation.

As far as angels being on a certain frequency...the physics of it might make a bit more sense if one were to add a phase shift to that. If I remember my old circuit design and optics classes, I could not see a particular frequency I wanted unless I made certain I had the phase adjusted right.

But like Bob said - frequency and phase shift may no be enough to actually see the life forms we call angels (good or bad) which are also occupying space on this earth, yet we cannot seem them. It might take string theory, multi-dimensional spaces, or even the concept of rethinking our science of life to consider that carbon is not the only framework God can create life around...

Rolling right along...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Sure, I'll read anything about the Bible. Send it on. Go to my profile page to see my email address.

Done. Let me know if there are any problems with the e-mail.

The exegesis you sent gives this translation of Job 19: 26--

For I know that my Redeemer lives

And at last he will stand upon the earth.

And after my skin has been thus destroyed

The from [that is, apart from] my flesh I shall see God

Whom I shall see on my side

And my eyes shall behold and not another.

Job 19:25-27

While this is a possible translation, it could also read just as the KJV reads ("in my flesh") or as the Jewish Publication Society's translation (1988) reads:

But I know that my Vindicator live;

In the end He will testify on earth--

This, after my skin will have been peeled off.

But I would behold God while still in my flesh,

I myself, not another, would behold Him;

Would see with my own eyes:

My heart pines within me.

The Hebrew preposition can be translated as "from" or "in." Some of the best Jewish scholars in Hebrew translate it in that verse as "in." The NIV (and many others) also reads "in."

Even when translated "from my flesh," it is possible to understand it to mean "from within" or "from among," etc.

"Apart from my flesh" is pretty much the same as "without my flesh," and as the Harper Study Bible (RSV) notes say, "without my flesh" is "not linguistically legitimate."

The RSV gives "from my flesh," but it does not mean without the body. It means "from within my flesh." The NRSV gives "in my flesh."

The Harper Study Bible (RSV) notes: "But even if we construe it as 'without my flesh (which is not linguistically legitimate), the following verse, "my eyes behold," makes mention of the possession and use of a body after death."

As the writer of the article pointed out, it is a much discussed and much debated passage, mostly because there are several different and even contradictory ways in which it may be translated. For instance, William Beck translated it: "Afterward my skin will surround this body, and in my flesh I will see God."

[oldsailor29]

One of the books which iterates things we should not believe is Job. Job and his friends received stern rebukes from God, for their beliefs. So, if you decide what it actually means, then you will know what not to believe.

[jasd]

>>Per your request, jasd, here are a few quotes I've found:<<

Thanks. I’d run into a collection of these quotes before and am grateful that you’ve provided them that I might file them in my documents.

>>While not feigning their errors, they also aren't flinching what it means to use Sola Scriptura, either. The choice is to either join the Seventh-day Adventist Church (with all its own warts and all) or join the Roman Catholic Church. There will be no ultimate "in-between".<<

Well, I shouldn’t go that far – as the Seventh-day Adventist Church has no more Biblical validation (sola scriptura) for a Saturday to Saturday Sabbath observance – than do the RCs have for a Sunday to Sunday Sabbath observance. Besides,

speaking of “warts and all”, the SDA member does not subscribe to such as Ballinger, Canright, the later Jones and Waggoner, etc – so, why would he or she subscribe to this or that only observer upon Holy Writ within the RC hierarchy?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

And Gd made the contradistinction as pertains man having a spirit separate from his tabernacle of flesh – as in the writings of His prophet Moses in Genesis 15:9-18

>>Here's Genesis 15:9-18

[...]

17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.

18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,...<<

Or, as the KJV as posited by jasd would have it:

Gen 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. … v17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. v18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,…

Prov 20:27 The spirit of man [is] the candle {5216} of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

candle: Strong’s #5216. … nerah, nay-raw; from a prim. Root [see 5214; 5135] prop. Mean. to glisten; a lamp (i.e. the burner) or light (lit. or fig.):--candle, lamp, light.

>>The only thing dead in that passage is the offering Abram made to God. There's nothing concerning life after death, nor a contradistinction between a human spirit and the tabernacle of flesh.<<

I attempted to show that Genesis 15 provides an example of man’s spirit as separate from his body; kinda like an out-of-body experience...

>>Abram did fall asleep on God, and had a very terrifying vision as he slept...but Abraham didn't die.<<

I agree. If it is, as you propose, that man – flesh and breath – is a living soul, Genesis 15:12-18 is a passage which seems to have found substantiation in Hebrews 4:12 – that is, “...even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit”.

>>First, the process of building life - found in Genesis 2:7, where God is seen molding man from the dust of the earth, breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and man becomes a living soul. From non-existence, God brings man into existence.

We don't have a soul occupying a body, we have a soul which is the product of a body plus the breath of life.<<

That may be; however...

1 Thess 5:23 ...and [i pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved...

‘Spirit’ seems to be a thing that is formed at a time other than when man first becomes a living soul.

>>This breath of life is later in Genesis called "spirit" in reference to all that which died in the Flood...<<

Indeed; however, I find Genesis 6:17 more in keeping with that which we think of as spirit – as opposed to our body tabernacle.

Gen 6:17 ...to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath (Strong’s #7307) of life, from under heaven;

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath (Strong’s #5397) of life,

>>I do not see anywhere in Scripture where "spirit" is consistently and unequivocally given the sentient properties of thought, emotion, apart from the product of body+breath of life = living soul.<< [/ed.jasd]

I doubt that one may find too much that is “unequivocal” in the Hebrew – it containing many nuances, allusions, poetry, symbology, etc. That said,

I believe St Peter, should he be rightly ascribed (1 Pet 5:18-20), as also St Paul (Eph 4:9,10), when informing us as to the work of Jesus Christ whilst His body lay in the tomb – provided a glimpse into the spirit as removed from, (let’s say), the composite “living soul”

>>Yes, the spirit departs, but what good to a person is it if that spirit has no cognitive abilities? No body, no life, no soul. Non-existence.<<

“No body”, yes. “No soul”, yes. “Non-existence”, we accept only as dogma. Per cognitive abilities, Jesus Christ preached to some of them. Do we question Jesus Christ’s judgement as simply an indulgence in soliloquy?

>>There are three references to what happens at death in Ecclesiastes - 3:20, 21, 9:4-6, and 12:7. Standard SDA texting on the subject, and each repeats one part or another that which is written in Psalms 146:4.<<

The author of Ecclesiastes used the term “under the sun” 32 times. I suggest that “under the sun” pretty well framed the contents of the book. It is a pretty limiting or predicating terminology – that allows for that which may or may not occur re the ‘spirit’ elsewhere.

Per Psalms 146:4 – I submit that that addresses man the, as some would have it, “living soul”. That leaves the disposition of man’s animating spirit... Anyway, these are all texts that concern man as his condition dictated pre the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

>>As for John 11:26...isn't that in the context of Lazarus' death??<<

I think that John 11:23-25 may more specifically address Lazarus’ death – with verse 26 addressing more – those who, thenceforward, ‘lived and believed’.

>>And doesn't that need to be read in the context of what He said in the verse just before 26? Which goes something like...

25,26: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"<<

Okay, context it is, Jesus Christ spoke to two aspects of the matter – the dead believers and the living believers. He squared the circle. He introduced that which now obtained vis-à-vis His approaching sacrifice and man; that is, man would, thenceforward, be recipients of ‘life unto life’ – without the intermediate state of death (that state of being “naked and unclothed”, per St Paul).

[jasd]

>>Keeping the subject of what happens at death in the context of the Scriptures,<<

OT or NT, pre or post-crucifixion? I submit that Holy Writ approaches the matter as transitional in character.

>>...either Christ is talking nonsense, or He is clearly communicating a great truth - believing Christ is the resurrection and the life will trump the return to non-existence which comes at death: the believer will close his/her eyelids in death, only to hear in the next instant Christ calling him/her awake.<<

SDA doctrine nullifies that argument by teaching that both Enoch and Elijah, as well Moses – were in Gd’s good heaven prior to Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.

That state of ‘soul-sleep’ contradicts St Paul and would have the NT believer “naked and unclothed”, as it were, whilst he or she awaited resurrection.

>>It's interesting to me that people like to use this passage in support of life after death,<<

It pleases me to discover that other(s) – than myself – use this passage in “support of life after death”.

>>...because taking the whole story into account, life after death cannot be corroborated by Lazarus' own testimony to that effect.<<

I am not aware of anyone attempting to validate Jesus Christ’s own words with/by those of Lazarus, which same – is non-existent.

>>In short, God could have ended the argument before it started with a short testimony from Lazarus as to his after-life experience. Given what Scriptures earlier said about the life-building and dying processes, the absence of Lazarus' life after death experience I must take to mean he was dead, with no thoughts, no zeal, no emotion, and no recollection of time passing while he was dead.<<

So, what reason might we ascribe to St Paul’s reticence in relating what he saw whilst caught up to the third heaven? He, flat-out stated that that “...man, whether in the spirit or in the body...” saw things which were “unlawful to speak”.

>>And this was a believer - and friend - of Christ.<<

As was, we suspect, St Paul.

>>..."ruach" - the word referenced in Gen. 7, Psalms 146, and 2 of the examples in Ecclesiastes (Ch. 3 and 12).

A detailed listing of the occurrences of "ruach" will also show many things can be done with the "spirit" - the "ruach" can be sorrowed, saddened, annoyed, knit together with others, praising God, magnified, exalted...but always in the context of participating in a living body (body+spirit = soul).<< [ed.jasd]

Eccl 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, ...

You’re not suggesting that in the above text the “body/spirit/soul” ‘participatorily’ goeth upward , are you?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Begging to disagree. It was Jesus Christ who informed us that “...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (Jn 3:13)

>>You can disagree if that's your choice, but God clearly took both Enoch (pre-Flood) into heaven by direct translation.<<

Yes, Writ tells us that Enoch was “taken”, but it is eisegesis, the hubris of man, which placed him in Gd’s heaven.

>>Likewise, the prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven by a chariot of fire shortly after the Mt. Carmel experience.<<

But doesn’t Holy Writ relate that he, afterwards, wrote a letter to the king – from elsewhere upon earth? The representation of Elijah being taken up may be analogous to POTUS being taken up in Marine One to be deposited elsewhere.

>>Christ words about ascending into heaven I take to mean no man works/earns his way there on his own merits. Enoch and Elijah are in heaven solely due to their faith in Christ.<<

There is the matter of Jesus Christ’s words, “...but he that came down from heaven,”. The paradigmic constraints would be that Enoch and Elijah had first ‘come down from heaven’. Is there any indication anywhere that Enoch and Elijah had originally dwelt in heaven – as did the Son of Man, Jesus Christ?

>>As for Moses...by my points, I certainly can put Moses in heaven, as he was resurrected from death (like Lazarus - before the cross), then translated there.<<

That may have indeed been the way it occurred.

>>Otherwise, what will you do with the Mt. of Transfiguration, where both Moses and Elijah are seen bodily next to Christ?<<

Jesus Christ told His disciples that what they had seen was a vision – a ‘spectacular’ vision.

>>All in all...if you really want to get to the brass tacks of, time has meaning only for us who are alive. The life after death thing is something to make us comfortable about the passing of friends and loved ones. It doesn't do a thing for those who can no longer think or praise God.<<

The book of Revelation informs us differently.

>>From the perspective of the dying: they feel the sting of death, they close their eyes. Darkness takes over.<<

Exactly, if we speak of those who died pre-crucifixion.

>>In the next instance, they hear the voice of Christ calling them to awaken from death.<<

Exactly, as pertains those who are dead in Christ, the promise, the anointed – per the words spoken by Jesus Christ to Martha and per the words written by St Paul to the Thessalonians – and, as applicable, those who, as you state, awaken to judgement.

>>From that perspective, they're apparently going either straight to Christ (or straight to judgment), as they have not seen any time passing by them. It will very much appear to them they have died, and gone straight to heaven or to judgment.<<

To heaven? who then are those who dwell upon the millennial earth?

>>All that, even if hundreds or even thousands of years have passed in "normal" time flow...<<

“Will I dream?” --Data

[John317]

One of the books which iterates things we should not believe is Job. Job and his friends received stern rebukes from God, for their beliefs. So, if you decide what it actually means, then you will know what not to believe.

Yes, we know his "friends" didn't tell the truth about God, anyway. That is for sure. But there's no reason we can't believe what Job said, yet of course we must always understand them within their proper context.