Religious

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's an interesting interpretation, but how do you square that with this?

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

And this,

Matt 11:27
27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
NASB

And this,

John 6:46
46 "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father
NASB

So, if Moses and Elijah were bodily in God's presence even before the Son came into this world, then how do you reconcile the above passages with that interpretation? At least I would assume they were both in heaven in the presence of God, right?

Boxcar

Check out Dr. Custance's take on that (in case you haven't seen/read it yet) in Appendix II of Journey Out of Time (particularly the last four paragraphs of the passage):

http://www.custance.org/Library/Jour...xes/AppII.html

Perhaps (I stress "perhaps"), once they reached heaven, Moses and Elijah were no longer (mortal) "men" in the sense that the word is used in the verses above, even though they retained their bodily identities. They had been "special" cases that were encompassed by Jesus' statement "... and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Check out Dr. Custance's take on that (in case you haven't seen/read it yet) in Appendix II of Journey Out of Time (particularly the last four paragraphs of the passage):

http://www.custance.org/Library/Jour...xes/AppII.html

Perhaps (I stress "perhaps"), once they reached heaven, Moses and Elijah were no longer (mortal) "men" in the sense that the word is used in the verses above, even though they retained their bodily identities. They had been "special" cases that were encompassed by Jesus' statement "... and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

I am wading through Custance's work. That guy needs to writing lessons from me to learn to be more concise.

But seriously, Time is an abstract creation -- it's invisible and very tough for the mind to grasp, so it is a heavy topic. However, in his second lesson, he finally did get around to conceding that Time without Space could not exist (which would seem to contradict his earlier statement...but be that as it may...). He even said that Time is a creation and that Time and Space are inextricably entwined. He then went on to quote Einistein who nailed it even more precisely when he said:

If you don't take my words too seriously, I would say this: If we assume that all matter were to disappear from the world, then, before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the Theory of Relativity, if matter (and its motion) disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time.

This is what I said in my Universe series several years ago. Each structural component of the universe is dependent on the other two for its existence. Remove one and there is no universe. The universe, in fact, is a TriUniverse; for its very structure reflects the TriUnity of the Godhead. God fashioned the universe after his "image" in a manner of speaking.

And Custance finally got around to somewhat defining Time instead of just describing it. He correctly said that Time is a succession of events. And that is 100% correct.

I think Mat 11:27 is talking about revealing in the spiritual sense in this age in this world, not in heaven. Recall Peter's confession of who Jesus was? Jesus told Peter that he was blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal that all-important truth to him, but his Father in heaven did. The revelation of spiritual truth in the bible is a big theme, and it's talking about spiritual revelation in this world.

Right now I have a really rough time wrapping my mind around the idea that Moses and Elijah went into heaven with glorified bodies like Christ -- but way before He did! Don't forget: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the [eternal] kingdom of God. And Jesus is the First Fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:23). That in itself poses a huge hurdle for me with your idea about Moses and Elijah. And in addition to that there is another huge obstacle in Heb 11:40 wherein the writer states that the OT saints will not be made "perfect" (receive their redeemed bodies) apart from the NT saints!

But anyhoo...I will continue to wade through Custance's work. I'll be starting the 3rd chapter shortly.

Boxcar

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Check out Dr. Custance's take on that (in case you haven't seen/read it yet) in Appendix II of Journey Out of Time (particularly the last four paragraphs of the passage):

http://www.custance.org/Library/Jour...xes/AppII.html

Perhaps (I stress "perhaps"), once they reached heaven, Moses and Elijah were no longer (mortal) "men" in the sense that the word is used in the verses above, even though they retained their bodily identities. They had been "special" cases that were encompassed by Jesus' statement "... and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

After further research, I've found the thoughts at the link below to be a persuasive argument, contending that, when Jesus, in subsequently speaking with Peter, James, and John as they came down from the mountain where the Transfiguration had occurred, referred to the experience as a "vision", then that was what it had been -- not a case where Moses and Elijah were in fact physically, bodily present, and not a basis for drawing conclusions about the nature or state of those who have died, but a means for Jesus to impart greater insight to the apostles about the relationship of Jesus and his forthcoming death and resurrection to the Law (as represented by Moses), and the Prophets (as represented by Elijah). This also conforms to the clear teachings of the Bible that Jesus was the "firstborn" of the dead; that no one had been resurrected to eternal life prior to Jesus' own resurrection; and that no "man" (in whatever form) had ever seen God prior to Jesus' life.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/enoch.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Overlay

After further research, I've found the thoughts at the link below to be a persuasive argument, contending that, when Jesus, in subsequently speaking with Peter, James, and John as they came down from the mountain where the Transfiguration had occurred, referred to the experience as a "vision", then that was what it had been -- not a case where Moses and Elijah were in fact physically, bodily present, and not a basis for drawing conclusions about the nature or state of those who have died, but a means for Jesus to impart greater insight to the apostles about the relationship of Jesus and his forthcoming death and resurrection to the Law (as represented by Moses), and the Prophets (as represented by Elijah). This also conforms to the clear teachings of the Bible that Jesus was the "firstborn" of the dead; that no one had been resurrected to eternal life prior to Jesus' own resurrection; and that no "man" (in whatever form) had ever seen God prior to Jesus' life.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/enoch.html

Thaskalos, once upon a time, you had cited as a contradiction in the bible either Enoch or Elijah (or maybe both) because Jesus did teach that no one has the seen the Father at any time except for the Son, meaning no man has ever entered heaven before the Son of Man did. Therefore, you might want to check the arguments from the link Overlay has provided.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

In chapter 3, Custance made this statement:

It is necessary to say a further word about the sense of now-ness. We carry this with us as long as we have consciousness. It always has to do with conscious being, not with having been in the past or with hoping to be in the future. It amounts to this almost, that eternity is a kind of now-consciousness, an awareness of something which has no passing, but travels with us. So long as we experience time, it is like a single point that moves with us along the horizontal line of our time-frame. When that time-frame comes to an end and the horizontal line no longer intersects the vertical line to mark the point we experience as now, now-ness will cease to be a single point. We shall then experience it along the whole vertical line of eternity in a way that has nothing to do with time but has everything to do with depth and intensity.

How true this is. How many of have ever gotten "caught up in the moment"? So much so, we lose all sense of time. We get really absorbed in our "now-ness", as Custance says. The moment is all there is for us. It as as though eternity is traveling with us. And this concept brings to mind this passage:

Eccl 3:11
11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.
NASB

This is how eternity travels with us. A sound, biblical observation by Custance.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Overlay, I have finally completed the mini book. First, I want to say that it was a fascinating read. This is the good news. The bad is that his theory, I think, has too many holes in it.

Despite all the elaborate pains Custance took to try to build his case, he somehow omits from his arguments the existence of Sheol in the OT. Of course, the teachings on Sheol do not help his case at all! Perhaps this is why there was no mention of this place.

As you probably know, Sheol was the underworld where both the righteous and unrighteous spirits descended. What is so devastating about Sheol is that the OT saints did not expect to die and see God in heaven, but to descend to Sheol (Gen 37:34-35). Not only this, but there is consciousness in Sheol and, despite Custance's insistence that without our body we have no identity or personality, apparently the souls/spirits in that place have both (Isa 49:10). It was said of David that he would go to his son, apparently knowing that he would recognize the infant (2 Sam 12:23).

All of these teachings harmonize nicely with what the NT taught about Hades (which was the OT Sheol).

Another huge problem with his theory is that once a person dies here on earth, he ceases to exist physically. He is is dead. His spirit/soul survives and lives on. It "crosses over" to eternity. Or as he said, the person's foot touched the Jordan and the moment it did, he stood on "dry ground", i.e. another dimension -- a timeless one. And then we are told that God unites a body (I suppose) to that spirit in order to have an instantaneous bodily resurrection. God provides a body suitable to the spirit. But wait...in all the scriptural accounts of resurrection, the persons were raised up in their own bodies. Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb here on earth. At the resurrection, he claimed his body -- yes, it was a transformed body -- a glorified body, but it was HIS. Ditto for Lazarus. When Jesus raised up Lazarus, he returned in his own body. Same thing with Jarius' daughter, etc. So, the problem I have is that if we're resurrected instantaneously upon death, then it certainly isn't in the body that we inhabited here on earth. It must be in some other body. The bodies of the dead stay here; they certainly don't cross over the Jordan the way he says our souls do. So, can there really be a resurrection, in the biblical sense, if that resurrection isn't in our own bodies? Is it only the people who are alive at the Lord's return and raptured to meet him who will be in their own bodies? If their bodies don't stay on planet earth, then how come the bodies of the dead do?

Another huge problem Custance doesn't address is the sudden and unexpected Second Coming. Repeatedly, scripture teaches that the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. And that NO ONE knows the day or the hour. And we're told to keep diligent watch! But according to Custance, the Lord "returns" for us and everyone else when our feet touch the Jordan. In other words, the coming of the Lord is actually a very personal experience because to anyone who believes this theory, and isn't in particular good health and so on, he could pretty well pin down a reasonable time range on when the Second Coming would take place for him or her! I have a problem with that.

Another problem I don't believe he tackled were the souls in heaven in Rev 6:9; 20:4. I thought there were no disembodied spirits/souls in heaven?

And there are other problems,too, but we won't go into those. Remember what I told you in the very beginning when you shared his theory? I said there would be no small number of scriptures that his theory would have to adequately address because it would present too many problems, otherwise.

But again, it was a very interesting read and I did learn a few things.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I think the debate as to whether or not we have a soul is far more valuable than the trite question of how many angels can dance on a pin head.

I was not talking about the whether something survives death, but rather speaking to hair splitting the use of terms like spirit or soul

You seem to think that the rest of us have not practised meditation and you're the only one who has.
I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's not valid.

Only thaskalos as far as I know. Have you?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Another huge problem Custance doesn't address is the sudden and unexpected Second Coming. Repeatedly, scripture teaches that the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. And that NO ONE knows the day or the hour. And we're told to keep diligent watch! But according to Custance, the Lord "returns" for us and everyone else when our feet touch the Jordan. In other words, the coming of the Lord is actually a very personal experience because to anyone who believes this theory, and isn't in particular good health and so on, he could pretty well pin down a reasonable time range on when the Second Coming would take place for him or her! I have a problem with that.

Just on this one point at the moment, I agree that Jesus said that only the Father knows the precise timing of the Second Coming, but He also gave signs of that coming to his followers, for which (as you say) he told them to be watching, which to me implies that he didn't want them to be caught unaware, and that it is valid to anticipate -- and even perhaps to imminently anticipate -- His return. I don't think that the analogy with the precise timing of one's death stretches that to an unwarranted degree. (After all, Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 9:12 that no one knows when his hour will come.)

[Overlay]

As an additional possible perspective, under Custance's model, although each individual is present at the Second Coming immediately after death, that applies to everyone who has even lived, from Adam to the present, even though thousands of years of "real time" have elapsed in the interim (including differences between the separate times when all those various individuals died). So, even though the individual is present there immediately after death, who can know or speculate when that Second Coming will occur as a separate, factual, historical event (even though each individual is there to see it)? In that sense, to me, no one would in fact know the day or the hour before it occurred.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Overlay

As an additional possible perspective, under Custance's model, although each individual is present at the Second Coming immediately after death, that applies to everyone who has ever lived, from Adam to the present, even though thousands of years of "real time" have elapsed in the interim (including differences between the separate times when all those various individuals died). So, even though the individual is present there immediately after death, who can know or speculate when that Second Coming will occur as a separate, factual, historical event (even though each individual is there to see it)? In that sense, to me, no one would in fact know the day or the hour before it occurred.

Correcting a typo in the above post.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Another huge problem with his theory is that once a person dies here on earth, he ceases to exist physically. He is is dead. His spirit/soul survives and lives on. It "crosses over" to eternity. Or as he said, the person's foot touched the Jordan and the moment it did, he stood on "dry ground", i.e. another dimension -- a timeless one. And then we are told that God unites a body (I suppose) to that spirit in order to have an instantaneous bodily resurrection. God provides a body suitable to the spirit. But wait...in all the scriptural accounts of resurrection, the persons were raised up in their own bodies. Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb here on earth. At the resurrection, he claimed his body -- yes, it was a transformed body -- a glorified body, but it was HIS. Ditto for Lazarus. When Jesus raised up Lazarus, he returned in his own body. Same thing with Jarius' daughter, etc. So, the problem I have is that if we're resurrected instantaneously upon death, then it certainly isn't in the body that we inhabited here on earth. It must be in some other body. The bodies of the dead stay here; they certainly don't cross over the Jordan the way he says our souls do. So, can there really be a resurrection, in the biblical sense, if that resurrection isn't in our own bodies? Is it only the people who are alive at the Lord's return and raptured to meet him who will be in their own bodies? If their bodies don't stay on planet earth, then how come the bodies of the dead do?

As I interpret Custance, we step out of time into eternity not as disembodied souls, but in our resurrected, glorified bodies. There is no "soul" to survive independent of the body, and the elimination of time at death means that there is no interval between death and the resurrection in which a disembodied soul would have to survive. (This same comment would apply to your reference to Sheol as the abode of the dead. References I briefly checked just now (which agreed with exposition that I thought I recalled previously hearing on the subject) interpreted Sheol as synonymous with "the grave", without a connotation of conscious existence or afterlife.)

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It was said of David that he would go to his son, apparently knowing that he would recognize the infant (2 Sam 12:23).

Of his dead son, David said, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." This speaks to me of the inevitability of David someday joining his infant son in death, rather than having the son brought back bodily to life on earth. I don't see the necessity of interpreting it as evidence of personal recognition or conscious meeting of spirits or souls in the afterlife.

[Overlay]

As I said, I had many questions about how Custance's model squared with Scripture when I first encountered his writings. But after I noted how he had specifically addressed many of those concerns in a manner that I considered eminently satisfactory, I decided to assume (just for the sake of argument) that his interpretation was correct all the way down the line. I then went back and re-examined the remaining Scriptural passages that I had in mind starting from that assumption, and (if my interpretation differed), proceeding on the conclusion that my interpretation had been the one that was inaccurate, and that I needed to consider the passage and its context further. Looking at it from that perspective, I discovered that I was consistently able to reconcile any discrepancies I had noted in that manner, and that the meaning of some passages was not as cut-and-dried or locked-in as my previous interpretation had made them.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Overlay

As an additional possible perspective, under Custance's model, although each individual is present at the Second Coming immediately after death, that applies to everyone who has even lived, from Adam to the present, even though thousands of years of "real time" have elapsed in the interim (including differences between the separate times when all those various individuals died). So, even though the individual is present there immediately after death, who can know or speculate when that Second Coming will occur as a separate, factual, historical event (even though each individual is there to see it)? In that sense, to me, no one would in fact know the day or the hour before it occurred.

Hmmm...but is it an "historical" event? If an event happens only after someone steps into eternity (another dimension), how can we say that the Second Coming is an historical event? After all, "history" implies a time past. But there is no time in eternity of any kind. To state the problem in another way, when someone dies here in this world, the Second Coming didn't occur during his lifeTIME; therefore there was never any historical event for such people. In eternity, there will be no such thing as a lifetime. I don't see how we can have this both ways -- an event in eternity (non-historical) for the vast majority of all the redeemed; yet somehow still an historical event that takes place in this dimension that is governed by Time, Space and Matter?

This is the same kind of problem with the bodily resurrection. Custance is saying all people will be "resurrected" immediately upon entrance into eternity -- as soon as our feet "touch the Jordan" -- yet, our bodies are still rotting away in our graves in this dimension. So, then, how could the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous be an historical event, since our bodies are still in the grave? Unlike Christ's resurrection, our corpses in this world would testify AGAINST the resurrection! Yet, on the other hand, not all believers will die in this dimension. Some will remain alive when the Lord historically returns and these will be raptured in their bodies -- yes, transformed, glorified bodies -- but nonetheless in bodies that will be recognizably their own. But how can this be said of those whose resurrection is only experienced on the other side of the Jordan?

Boxcar

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hmmm...but is it an "historical" event? If an event happens only after someone steps into eternity (another dimension), how can we say that the Second Coming is an historical event? After all, "history" implies a time past. But there is no time in eternity of any kind. To state the problem in another way, when someone dies here in this world, the Second Coming didn't occur during his lifeTIME; therefore there was never any historical event for such people. In eternity, there will be no such thing as a lifetime. I don't see how we can have this both ways -- an event in eternity (non-historical) for the vast majority of all the redeemed; yet somehow still an historical event that takes place in this dimension that is governed by Time, Space and Matter?

This is the same kind of problem with the bodily resurrection. Custance is saying all people will be "resurrected" immediately upon entrance into eternity -- as soon as our feet "touch the Jordan" -- yet, our bodies are still rotting away in our graves in this dimension. So, then, how could the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous be an historical event, since our bodies are still in the grave? Unlike Christ's resurrection, our corpses in this world would testify AGAINST the resurrection! Yet, on the other hand, not all believers will die in this dimension. Some will remain alive when the Lord historically returns and these will be raptured in their bodies -- yes, transformed, glorified bodies -- but nonetheless in bodies that will be recognizably their own. But how can this be said of those whose resurrection is only experienced on the other side of the Jordan?

Boxcar

Since (as you say) some people will still be alive on earth to witness the Second Coming, how could it be other than a historical event? That would mean that they must still be "in time".

You appear to be experiencing the same difficulty that I also initially had in wrapping my mind around the seemingly simultaneous reality of individuals who have died on earth being physically alive in their glorified bodies outside of (and after) time, while also appearing as physically dead and buried to those who are still "trapped in time" on earth. But they are in two separate, non-intersecting dimensions.