U Die Then Go? Where?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul talks about 3 conditions:

  1. clothed on earth with mortal body
  2. the wretched state of being naked, without a body which he groaned within himself to skip
  3. clothed upon "that mortality might be swallowed up of life" in his heavenly body
Please answer this if you can:

If it's true that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", why does Paul lament the thought of losing his earthly, mortal body and being naked without a body? - take pains to tell us of how much he desires not to be naked and without a body? - and groan within himself with desire to skip being naked without a body and be in the presence of Jesus?
Clearly, if Paul thought that he'd be with Jesus at death, why would he give a flip about being naked without a body?


Wow! Brother you read so much into what is not there…(perhaps a secret revelation, if so please tell us). The very beginning of the chapter gives us the context just as any profound writer will do, just as Genesis 1:1 appears like a thesis expounded on through 2:4. In the opening lines Paul says clearly…

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.”

This, right here is the introductory thought regarding that which shall be expounded. Read it carefully…

IF (or when) our earthly house (this body) were dissolved, WE HAVE a building of God….eternal….IN THIS (earthly tabernacle) we groan earnestly desiring (the Spirit, which we now have, is our earnest) to be clothed with the eternal body (Christ IN you, the hope or eager expectation of glory) which is the house from heaven (which joining takes place at the parousia/resurrection) in the meantime (as scripture weighs out) we are in the heavenlies IN CHRIST Jesus, in the throne room (Revelations 7, the great multitude, uncountable, from every nation and tongue) awaiting His return (how do I know they are waiting there? Because those beheaded in the trib ask when is He going to exact vengeance?)

The final statement (If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked) following the colon qualifies what has just been said….it is telling us that in fact we shall not be found naked because we will be so clothed (albeit this clothing, or obtaining of the new spiritual soma will not happen until the resurrection) but that has nothing to do with the being “in the presence of the Lord” for we do not need such a body in the throne room…we will be there awaiting His return at which time the scriptures tell us the Anti-Christ will be consumed, the first resurrection occurs and those who are alive (Spirit filled believers alive at the time) along with the bodies of those who died “IN CHRIST” will be caught up (what they call the rapture) TOGETHER to meet Him (apentensis) in the air…
 
Paul talks about 3 conditions:

  1. clothed on earth with mortal body
  2. the wretched state of being naked, without a body which he groaned within himself to skip
  3. clothed upon "that mortality might be swallowed up of life" in his heavenly body
Please answer this if you can:

If it's true that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", why does Paul lament the thought of losing his earthly, mortal body and being naked without a body? - take pains to tell us of how much he desires not to be naked and without a body? - and groan within himself with desire to skip being naked without a body and be in the presence of Jesus?
Clearly, if Paul thought that he'd be with Jesus at death, why would he give a flip about being naked without a body?


Wow! Brother you read so much into what is not there…(perhaps a secret revelation, if so please tell us). The very beginning of the chapter gives us the context just as any profound writer will do, just as Genesis 1:1 appears like a thesis expounded on through 2:4. In the opening lines Paul says clearly…

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.”

This, right here is the introductory thought regarding that which shall be expounded. Read it carefully…

IF (or when) our earthly house (this body) were dissolved, WE HAVE a building of God….eternal….IN THIS (earthly tabernacle) we groan earnestly desiring (the Spirit, which we now have, is our earnest) to be clothed with the eternal body (Christ IN you, the hope or eager expectation of glory) which is the house from heaven (which joining takes place at the parousia/resurrection) in the meantime (as scripture weighs out) we are in the heavenlies IN CHRIST Jesus, in the throne room (Revelations 7, the great multitude, uncountable, from every nation and tongue) awaiting His return (how do I know they are waiting there? Because those beheaded in the trib ask when is He going to exact vengeance?)

The final statement (If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked) following the colon qualifies what has just been said….it is telling us that in fact we shall not be found naked because we will be so clothed (albeit this clothing, or obtaining of the new spiritual soma will not happen until the resurrection) but that has nothing to do with the being “in the presence of the Lord” for we do not need such a body in the throne room…we will be there awaiting His return at which time the scriptures tell us the Anti-Christ will be consumed, the first resurrection occurs and those who are alive (Spirit filled believers alive at the time) along with the bodies of those who died “IN CHRIST” will be caught up (what they call the rapture) TOGETHER to meet Him (apentensis) in the air…

Brother, you may not have realized it, but you've not answered my question, so I'll politely ask it again: If Paul expected to be immediately in the joyful presence of the Lord at death, why does he speak with such disdain and lamentation about being found naked without a body and groan with earnest desire to not be found as such? For what reason would he give a flip about being found naked without a body if he'd be in heaven in unspeakably joy and peace with our "great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ?
 
Brother, you may not have realized it, but you've not answered my question, so I'll politely ask it again: If Paul expected to be immediately in the joyful presence of the Lord at death, why does he speak with such disdain and lamentation about being found naked without a body and groan with earnest desire to not be found as such? For what reason would he give a flip about being found naked without a body if he'd be in heaven in unspeakably joy and peace with our "great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ?

Your final question is absurd since he is not speaking even of the possibility of such an event. That is why it cannot be answered…it is an assumption you have eisegeted into the passage. You have read into it something that is not there. He is telling us this will not happen.

Once again I quote "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
 
Your final question is absurd since he is not speaking even of the possibility of such an event. That is why it cannot be answered…it is an assumption you have eisegeted into the passage. You have read into it something that is not there. He is telling us this will not happen.

Once again I quote "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
The absurdity is that Paul would have to clarify to the church that the groaning desires that issue forth from Christians are desires to be with Him and not to be confused with groaning desires to be naked without a body (vs. 4), if being found naked is not possible as you insist. Good grief, if being naked without a body is not a possibility, then why would God inspire Paul to write such nonsense? Of course Paul understood that being naked without a body was possible.
 
Last edited:
Your final question is absurd since he is not speaking even of the possibility of such an event. That is why it cannot be answered…it is an assumption you have eisegeted into the passage. You have read into it something that is not there. He is telling us this will not happen.

Once again I quote "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

It seems that our difference of opinion lies with my belief that Paul is referring to our resurrection house when he says "a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens", while you claim that he is referring to some "Christ in you" house with which we go to meet Jesus immediately after we die before we are recipients of the resurrection house.

Since we both agree that at the coming of Jesus, we will receive our resurrection house and be clothed upon with that for all eternity in the heavens, here's a huge problem for you::

How can your "Christ in you" house be eternal when by your own admission, you will eventually receive and be clothed upon with a resurrection house for all eternity? Wouldn't your "Christ in you" house be at best considered "temporary in the heavens", until such time as you replace it with the permanent, eternal house of the resurrection? Just how many houses do you expect to be clothed with in eternity? Will you be some kind of "Celestial Fashionista"? (Sorry, my dear brother, buy I couldn't help myself LOL)
 
Last edited:
The absurdity is that Paul would have to clarify to the church that the groaning desires that issue forth from Christians are desires to be with Him and not to be confused with groaning desires to be naked without a body (vs. 4), if being found naked is not possible as you insist. Good grief, if being naked without a body is not a possibility, then why would God inspire Paul to write such nonsense? Of course Paul understood that being naked without a body was possible.

My goodness! What is your point?
 
My goodness! What is your point?
Why would Paul need to speak these words of clarification to the Corinthians, "we in this body do groan, (but) not that we would be unclothed", if Paul and the Corinthians agreed with Brother Paul's doctrine that Christians are never unclothed without a body? Are we to assume that there were actually some confused Corinthians who actually were groaning with desire to be unclothed and had to be set straight? If Paul and the Corinthians held to Brother Paul's idea that we as Christians are never unclothed, then Paul's words of clarification above would have to be the most unnecessary, illogical, non sequitur of anything he'd ever said.

But, if being unclothed without a body means being naked in the grave awaiting the resurrection, it makes perfect sense for Paul to say what he said:
"Hey church, we're suffering now in these earthly bodies with disease and aging and groaning to be relieved from it, but not simply with the RIP from it that we'd find lying naked in the grave without a body awaiting the resurrection, but with the eternal rest that we will find when we are finally in the presence of Jesus in our resurrection body which is "eternal in the heavens". Yes, Paul of Tarsus, that would make perfect sense to us.
 
Last edited:
It seems that our difference of opinion lies with my belief that Paul is referring to our resurrection house when he says "a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens", while you claim that he is referring to some "Christ in you" house with which we go to meet Jesus immediately after we die before we are recipients of the resurrection house.

Since we both agree that at the coming of Jesus, we will receive our resurrection house and be clothed upon with that for all eternity in the heavens, here's a huge problem for you::

How can your "Christ in you" house be eternal when by your own admission, you will eventually receive and be clothed upon with a resurrection house for all eternity? Wouldn't your "Christ in you" house be at best considered "temporary in the heavens", until such time as you replace it with the permanent, eternal house of the resurrection? Just how many houses do you expect to be clothed with in eternity? Will you be some kind of "Celestial Fashionista"? (Sorry, my dear brother, buy I couldn't help myself LOL)

G'day Phoneman777, I think it's interesting that this "resurrection house" called oikētērion is only used twice in the Bible. Once in 2Cor 5:2, like you say, and the other when Jude is talking about the Angels who sinned in Jude 1:6. The implications of this "house" being a spiritual body are great and I agree with you.
 
Yes, I think you misunderstand what I am saying...you said

It seems that our difference of opinion lies with my belief that Paul is referring to our resurrection house when he says "a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens", while you claim that he is referring to some "Christ in you" house with which we go to meet Jesus immediately after we die before we are recipients of the resurrection house.

What I am saying is that before we receive our glorified spiritual bodies at the parousia, but no longer on this earth, we are still present with the Lord as spirit beings, not in sheol/hades...these people have yet had their bodies raised and glorified...when we die in Christ we do not go to sheol/hades...we go to be with Him until the return (at which time we will be with Him and be united with those who remain and are alive and those raised from the graves, the seas, and the heavens...

Now I am not above correction on this unessential perspective but I do not accept soul sleep and know our glorification does not happen until the parousia...so I do not see any other option
 
Yes, I think you misunderstand what I am saying...you said

It seems that our difference of opinion lies with my belief that Paul is referring to our resurrection house when he says "a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens", while you claim that he is referring to some "Christ in you" house with which we go to meet Jesus immediately after we die before we are recipients of the resurrection house.

What I am saying is that before we receive our glorified spiritual bodies at the parousia, but no longer on this earth, we are still present with the Lord as spirit beings, not in sheol/hades...these people have yet had their bodies raised and glorified...when we die in Christ we do not go to sheol/hades...we go to be with Him until the return (at which time we will be with Him and be united with those who remain and are alive and those raised from the graves, the seas, and the heavens...

Now I am not above correction on this unessential perspective but I do not accept soul sleep and know our glorification does not happen until the parousia...so I do not see any other option

Thanks for attempting to clear things up, my dear brother, but I still don't see how the "building made without hands, eternal in the heavens" can refer to your idea of a "Christ in you" house which according to you will be eventually replaced with a resurrection house which we all agree is most certainly "eternal in the heavens." That would mean the your "Christ in you" house must be temporary, and to me cannot be the subject of what Paul says is the "building of God...eternal in the heavens."

Therefore, if Paul is speaking of only the mortal body and the resurrection body, then we have to accept his third variable of being "naked without a body", which Paul says can only be remedied by being "clothed upon' as recipients of the resurrection body. Moreover, Paul's loathsome disdain for this "naked without a body" condition can only point to one thing: the intermediate state of lying unconsciously dead in the grave without a body awaiting the resurrection. Both Paul and I wish to be "absent from this body and present with the Lord" by skipping the nakedness and wait of the grave to which Job had resigned himself. You may not agree, but I at least hope this perfectly plausible explanation shows that 2 Cor. 5 is not the slam dunk passage that the Immortal Soul camp would like it to be. :)
 
Thanks for attempting to clear things up, my dear brother, but I still don't see how the "building made without hands, eternal in the heavens" can refer to your idea of a "Christ in you" house which according to you will be eventually replaced with a resurrection house which we all agree is most certainly "eternal in the heavens." That would mean the your "Christ in you" house must be temporary, and to me cannot be the subject of what Paul says is the "building of God...eternal in the heavens."

Therefore, if Paul is speaking of only the mortal body and the resurrection body, then we have to accept his third variable of being "naked without a body", which Paul says can only be remedied by being "clothed upon' as recipients of the resurrection body. Moreover, Paul's loathsome disdain for this "naked without a body" condition can only point to one thing: the intermediate state of lying unconsciously dead in the grave without a body awaiting the resurrection. Both Paul and I wish to be "absent from this body and present with the Lord" by skipping the nakedness and wait of the grave to which Job had resigned himself. You may not agree, but I at least hope this perfectly plausible explanation shows that 2 Cor. 5 is not the slam dunk passage that the Immortal Soul camp would like it to be. :)

Christ in you is not a house!?!...It is the hope of glory...we look forward to it. I never said Christ in you is a house we are in (that was about Him in us...NOW...and we are in Him...NOW...and He is in heaven....NOW...and when we leave this plane of existence we do not cease to be with Him or He with us....

You keep saying I said this but I never said that. You have read into what I said like you are doing with what Paul said....Paul says to be absent from the BODY IS TO BE present with the Lord (your argument is with Paul not me). He nowhere distains being out of here. He states it is better for him to be with the Lord but for their sake better he stay...
 
Christ in you is not a house!?!...It is the hope of glory...we look forward to it. I never said Christ in you is a house we are in (that was about Him in us...NOW...and we are in Him...NOW...and He is in heaven....NOW...and when we leave this plane of existence we do not cease to be with Him or He with us....

You keep saying I said this but I never said that. You have read into what I said like you are doing with what Paul said....Paul says to be absent from the BODY IS TO BE present with the Lord (your argument is with Paul not me). He nowhere distains being out of here. He states it is better for him to be with the Lord but for their sake better he stay...
and when the parousia occurs he along with us will receive a spiritual body (a glorified physical form like the one Jesus had) but that he is now with the Lord is a fact (he is not sleeping somewhere waiting and not disdaining his present state in the presence of the Lord though he does ot have his new body yet)

When Moses appeared on the mount with Jesus he did not have a glorified body like Christ's (with flesh and bone as they saw He had, which could travel and even eat) but he was undoubtedly there (even though he had died physically)
 
Christ in you is not a house!?!...It is the hope of glory...we look forward to it. I never said Christ in you is a house we are in (that was about Him in us...NOW...and we are in Him...NOW...and He is in heaven....NOW...and when we leave this plane of existence we do not cease to be with Him or He with us....

You keep saying I said this but I never said that. You have read into what I said like you are doing with what Paul said....Paul says to be absent from the BODY IS TO BE present with the Lord (your argument is with Paul not me). He nowhere distains being out of here. He states it is better for him to be with the Lord but for their sake better he stay...
I must've misunderstood your Friday 9:55 AM post that was really parenthetical and hard for me to follow. BTW, Paul said "absent AND present", not "absent IS TO BE present" which you can see for yourself if you look it up.

Now then, if we agree that Paul describes only two bodies in 2 Cor. 5:1-4 ---
  1. the mortal body which we currently possess
  2. the immortal, eternal body we do not receive until the resurrection
---then are we also in agreement that the intermediate period between our death and the resurrection at the Second Coming is a period in which we will be "unclothed" without any body, a condition for which the only remedy is to be "clothed upon" with our resurrection body so that we will no longer "be found naked"?
 
Last edited:
I must've misunderstood your Friday 9:55 AM post that was really parenthetical and hard for me to follow. BTW, Paul said "absent AND present", not "absent IS TO BE present" which you can see for yourself if you look it up.

Okay my brother we will have to agree to disagree on this one...I showed you the Greek words used and most all Greek scholars (Christian or otherwise) have always interpreted this as "is to be present with". I can not help that some of the modernist Scholars (making an additional deviations from the deviated Westcott/Hort) like we find in the somewhat paraphrased ESV (the dynamic equivalent approach allows the translators to somewhat impose their view) have made these unmerited changes based on consensus from among their group.

Think about this? There are other spirit beings (which we also now are since born from above) like angels? Do they have form? Yes definitely...see any vision of the heavenlies or Isaiah in the Throne room. Do they have a soma (a body?) NO! Not while in heaven...

Heee we have a physical body (soma) and at the resurrection we receive a spiritual body (soma) but eternal life is NOW....all who are saved HAVE eternal life, and eternal life does not temporarily cease to exist, and then re-exist....we are eternally alive from now forever more. If we cease to exist in between these two soma experiences then the life we received was not "eternal" life because it was intermittent. In my humble opinion, the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Since I know we will not agree and we have gone off the OP, I will refrain and let you get in the last comment supporting your view and may the Lord bless you brother for one day we shall know even as we are known and I know we both love Him and have accepted what He has done on our behalf and stand on that.

In his love

brother Paul
 
Last edited:
I must've misunderstood your Friday 9:55 AM post that was really parenthetical and hard for me to follow. BTW, Paul said "absent AND present", not "absent IS TO BE present" which you can see for yourself if you look it up.

Now then, if we agree that Paul describes only two bodies in 2 Cor. 5:1-4 ---
  1. the mortal body which we currently possess
  2. the immortal, eternal body we do not receive until the resurrection
---then are we also in agreement that the intermediate period between our death and the resurrection at the Second Coming is a period in which we will be "unclothed" without any body, a condition for which the only remedy is to be "clothed upon" with our resurrection body so that we will no longer "be found naked"?

1 Corinthians 15:51-54King James Version (KJV)
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
 
Hey, my brother, it's OK with me if we don't see eye to eye concerning "and present" vs. "is to be present" (for reasons concerning your Greek argument I'll not go into) but I'm really interested to know this: Are we in agreement that the time that elapses between our death and the resurrection at the Second Coming is a period in which we will be "unclothed" without any body, a condition for which the only remedy is to be "clothed upon" with our resurrection body so that we will no longer "be found naked"?
 
Last edited:
I do understand where you are coming from with that, but what is it to be clothed? Does any spirit being have clothes as we think of them? When in the throne room and John says the great uncountable multitude were garbed in white robes, were they really or just figuratively? Certainly not made of cotton or linen but nonetheless covered with a garment of sorts (or perhaps he was speaking figuratively) perhaps they actually were shinning as the sun. Or when Isaiah saw the Lord and His train filled the throneroom...His hair was white as snow and His eyes burned...He had a form there, that is without doubt (perhaps so Isaiah would not actually die). Or was He "naked" as we use that term? I do not think so...perhaps it means we are exposed with nothing to hide, transparent, revealed....before Him
 
I do understand where you are coming from with that, but what is it to be clothed? Does any spirit being have clothes as we think of them? When in the throne room and John says the great uncountable multitude were garbed in white robes, were they really or just figuratively? Certainly not made of cotton or linen but nonetheless covered with a garment of sorts (or perhaps he was speaking figuratively) perhaps they actually were shinning as the sun. Or when Isaiah saw the Lord and His train filled the throneroom...His hair was white as snow and His eyes burned...He had a form there, that is without doubt (perhaps so Isaiah would not actually die). Or was He "naked" as we use that term? I do not think so...perhaps it means we are exposed with nothing to hide, transparent, revealed....before Him

I think I have a Biblically textbook example of what Paul says is "a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens". It's not a spirit body, for "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have"!!! If we don't receive our Jesus-like body until the resurrection, the unavoidable prospect is that we'll be "naked" and "unclothed" without a body until then.

If Paul believed that he would die and immediately be with Jesus, why would he concern himself with an earnest desire to be clothed with a resurrection body so that he wouldn't be found naked (vs. 3), and why did he make it clear to us that our desire is not to "be unclothed, but clothed upon that mortality might be swallowed up" (vs. 4)?

Paul obviously wouldn't care one iota about being "naked" and "unclothed" if he believed he was going to be in the immediate presence of Jesus at death. But, if he believed that he would be where Job said he would be - in the grave without a body unconsciously awaiting his resurrection body - then it makes perfect sense why Paul so desired to "absent from the body and present with the Lord" because the nakedness of the grave would delay the unspeakable joy that awaits all who sleep in Jesus. If you have a more plausible explanation for why Paul so concerned himself about not wanting to be "naked" and "unclothed", I'm all ears my dear brother.
 
You are probably correct and I incorrect Phoneman...so now tell me what is the state of Paul between when he lost his head and as when he said we shall be face to face? Is he naked and distaining his state of being? Where is he now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top