[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
More
1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

The context of these verses is that Paul might be martyred and this is his mindset. When he says "to die" the context is clearly a physical death. This is not allegorical. When he says he has a desire to "depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" you cannot read that to mean that "the suffering of my life is over and his labor is finished" because in the next verse he makes it clear that it isn't finished, rather "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you".

The context and intent I think is very rich in detail. Like Stephen, if he is martyred he will be with Christ. (Perhaps he can even see Jesus standing.) He is quite excited at the prospect of being with Christ, but he knows his labor is not finished and he needs to remain for our sakes.

I don't particularly have a quibble with anyone thinking in the way that you do as laid out in your response. But you provide it as if the verses you supply answers the question and makes your answer the answer.

Just like the examples about Samuel and the others, now adding Paul's comments about the possible end of his life soon, they do not speak to the nature of the "between" life (or time) — the time between death and resurrection — in a way that gives any clear understanding of what that involves. And the point of the passages is something other than that interim period.

And then your point-by-point dissection of my longer post. I will provide an overview assessment in this way. You missed the point. Even the way you responded to so many items shows that you are missing the point.

For example, I created a hypothetical statement by a "postmodern" person that said

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Show me how you are changed.

You respond with

I did. I shared the testimony of the Buddhist that died and saw Jesus.

This just demonstrates to me that you did not actually read my post. I was not challenging anyone to give a testimony about how their life was changed, or provide some testimony from someone else. It was a comment on the excessive piling on of knowledge and claims about the unstated rather than focusing on the primary thrust of the whole of scripture, which is the gospel of Christ, belief in Him, and evidence that there is belief because it is seen in the changing of lives and the will to follow the one you claim to believe. One testimony of one Buddhist does not make a study into what happens after death "according to scripture" beyond what scripture clearly teaches important.

By the way. That post was not just for you. And even if it was, finding a testimony of someone who had some kind of vision as the result of whatever it is that we call "near death experiences" does not support the need for better understanding of what happens between death and the resurrection. It just proves that our God is real. However it came to be, whether a vision given in an extreme situation (nearly dying) or the partial opening of the veil that separates what is beyond the grave from what is on this side, it is proof of God. But it is not evidence of how this "between time" exists. If it is a vision, it could very well be a vision of what will be after the resurrection. How are we to know? And how are we to decide how to build a theology surrounding this?

And for what purpose? Being the first to do it?

Yes. We are joining here to discuss things somewhat theological. But we are far short of the kind of plurality required to consider anything we come up with as substantial. If we could submit it to others and they ultimately come to the same conclusion, that would be nice. But what does it do for us? Should we set out to make it a point of teaching?

I always have questions concerning some kinds of "afterlife" teachings. But most of what some Sunday School teacher is going to provide is little more than questionable terminology surrounding the little we actually know something about. We will be with Jesus. He is in heaven. The fact that heaven comes to the earth is not really something to gripe at them for not including in their discussion. They may be a little too enamored with their near-mythology about what it will be like.

But are we really doing much more than trying to pin down this near-mythology with better speculation? And for what purpose? What do we gain from it?

Lee thought that his over-analyzed, over-adjectivized version of scripture and its meaning relegated the rest of Christianity to the status of cattle in a field. We know better. But are we just beginning to chase after a different set of over-analyzed, over-nuanced theological constructs to replace those old ones with? We may not be as dogmatic about them as Lee and his followers have been. But where does it stop? When we realize that we forgot what is the primary core of the faith? When we remember that the command was to go and make followers and teach them to obey the commands, not go and teach minds to assent to better theology.

And, in this lifetime, there is no way to assert that whatever you come up with concerning pinning-down paradise v heaven v purgatory v Abraham's bosom is certain enough to hang any hats upon. And even if you actually think you can, it won't make a bit of difference to the current living of any of those Christ-followers besides thinking they know something better.

This is not the first topic like it. We no longer dissect the bad theology of Lee and the LRC. We dance around the bad acts (and they need to be trampled on) and try to pass judgment on every other Christian group that is still too much like the things that Lee said were bad.

Then we start trying to delve into things that the NT would seem to disagree with (disagree with us). Things like whether the whole idea of church leaders, elder, etc., was just something that Paul and others slipped into the account and it was an error. We despise the ground of dirt and then wonder how how so many groups exist in a single city, and try to figure out a different angle on making it all one. Or doing it "right" so that we can feel like our group has it right even if others don't. But we aren't going to get nasty about it like Lee. Just talk about it here.

Now we want a better-defined "between life."

Why? To what end?

I'm done with it. My objections are not to the actual accounts in the scripture or to suggest that the Buddhist did not have the vision he did and that his conversion is somehow false. My objections are to the chasing of more pins to put angels on. To yet one more truly irrelevant thing to capture our imaginations and thoughts while the important goes silent.

If this topic had been started by Bilbo, and was continually pushed as important to pursue by him, many would be screaming "troll" because the effect would be to drag-line a hook for an irrelevant topic and sucker as many as possible into it while the important topics go wanting. I'm not calling you or the others trolls. But in the grand scheme of things, whether an irrelevancy is being perpetrated by a troll or by someone else does not change the actual effect it has.