Originally posted by checkbaiterMust be very unusual to have a church full of poor readers that swallow the explanation given to them without seeing the mistakes in the interpretation.
The church was emboldened...during his incarceration and would at his death
The explanation does not fit the Bible, that much is clear.
Originally posted by Rajk999The poor reading is on your part, that is why I will not discuss much with you and your sarcasm. BTW, read until you find it, then get back to me.
Must be very unusual to have a church full of poor readers that swallow the explanation given to them without seeing the mistakes in the interpretation.
The explanation does not fit the Bible, that much is clear.
10 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiter
This is articulated very well for me and what I believe is truth, and what the bible says, not church tradition.
I too am pressed between two matters today - whether to pursue this subject or go back to the thread's OP Calling "Lord, Lord".
I will reply. The first thing I would say about your thoughtful paragraphs is that this little statement will have absolutely no effect on me.
" ... and what the bible says, not church tradition. "
Its purpose is to kind of "forewarn" the reader that disagreement with you will of course only be "traditional" dogma. IE. The real McCoy is about to be delivered and any other point of view is just the laziness of " church tradition".
Cute, checkbaiter. But it does not make an effective reply to this poster.
Assigning the pejorative sense of "church tradition" scores no points in this matter. Only a careful analysis of what Paul seems intended to communicate there is what matters. So, please, "I believe this is the truth " I respect. This is not merely "church tradition" carries no force for me. Okay?
Let's look below at your third party's input. Though that writer is not here to answer for him/herself what I might say.
3 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterCeckbaiter, before I back up and examine the foregoing paragraphs, i first want to deal with this antidote which does not apply to me.
The reason most Christians overlook the contradiction that their interpretation forces upon Philippians 1:23 is that they believe the Bible teaches that when a saved person dies he immediately goes to heaven, and they think the verse is saying Paul wants to die and go be with the Lord.
Since I do not believe that a Christian dies and immediately goes to heaven, this paragraph does not apply to my explanation.
I said that for the Christian to die was to be unclothed or found naked.
I indicated that Paul and his co-workers did not want to be found naked and unclothed before God but clothed upon with their resurrected and glorified bodies.
This is, I believe, a reflection of God's desire - that naked souls do not appear in heaven but man be clothed upon with the glorified body of resurrection.
1 edit
Checkbaiter, trying to keep posts manageable in size.
So I don't know what someone else may have told you. I would never teach that a Christian dies and goes immediately to Heaven in an unclothed and naked existence of the bare immaterial part of man.
To be "with Christ" in Philppians 1:23 does not have to mean in heaven.
It just means on some relative sense the deceased Apostle would be more "with Christ" then as a physically living Christian.
The Lord Jesus is WITH Paul alive and Paul WITH Christ already.
" ... even now Christ will be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death, For to me, to live is Christ." (1:19b,20)
It is emphatically the case that the normal Christian life is a life with Christ, in our human spirit as grace.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." (4:23)
Compare:
"The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." ( 2 Timothy 4:22)
So Paul alive is with Christ.
So all the Christians are with Christ. Praise the Lord. And we need to realize this.
He is with our spirit as grace - the enjoyment of His mingling and blending with us.
So, for Paul to be deceased and "with Christ" is only a relative matter and does not insist that it means he goes to heaven.
Now, I'll back up.
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiter
This is articulated very well for me and what I believe is truth, and what the bible says, not church tradition.
[b]“of good courage.” The Greek is tharrheō (#2292 θαρρέω, and in this context it refers to being of good courage, being confident, drawing courage from what we know to be truth. It is important to notice that Paul has repeated “of good c ...[text shortened]... ere was no benefit to him in being dead, lifeless, even though the Church would benefit.[/quote]
The reason Paul was torn between living and dying was that either one would benefit the church. He knew the church would benefit if he continued to live because he would be able to teach and support the believers. However, he also knew the church had benefited from his imprisonment (Phil 1:12), and it would also benefit from his death because believers would be emboldened to take a firm stand on the Good News about Christ (as it turned out, Paul’s execution was likely only 5 years after his writing Philippians, but we do not have any information on how the Philippians did after his death).
It may be and certainly is that Paul's living or being martyred was useful to the Christian church.
But when Paul says "For me to live is Christ and to DIE ... is gain" (v.21) he is speaking of his PERSONAL gain. He is human. He is certainly allowed, in the midst of his incredible devotion to the service of the churches, to speak of his PERSONAL gain too.
"For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain" (v.21)
So when Paul says to depart and be with Christ is far better he is speaking of PERSONAL betterment. This of course does not mean his martyrdom was of no profit to the churches, of course.
"But I am constrained between the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for this is far better." (v.23)
Paul loves Christ.
Paul would like to be with Christ whom he loves.
He is with Christ physically alive via "the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (v.19) . But he knows that if he should die he will GAIN more presence of Christ. That is why he said "and to die is GAIN".
Paul, personally, would prefer to gain more presence of Christ which is far better for him personally. He is not saying it is far better because of the service his death would mean to the church.
That may be a kind of noble thought of your expositor ie. "Paul want the church to benefit. He is hard pressed to render this benefit by DYING as a martyr or by remaining ALIVE as a laboring apostle."
Paul is perfectly within his human prerogatives to express his human desire to be with Christ Whom he loves, in a greater degree for his PERSONAL benefit. This detracts nothing from his consecration and service to the church.
He is a human being with human emotions and sentiments.
IE. " I am here in a jail cell. I may die at any moment. Well, if I do it will be GAIN for me. I am hard pressed between petitioning God for my continued living or to just go ahead and be martyred. It is after all far better for me personally that I be with Christ, gaining more of His presence in physical death.
To live is Christ and to die is for me personal gaining of even MORE Christ. "
Paul was genuinely wondering which would be better for the church: his life, or his death.
No, he is musing on what would be of more personal benefit.
He wrote, “I feel torn between the two” (NET). The last part of the verse, that Paul wanted something that was better by far, fits together with his being torn about living or dying, but the traditional orthodox explanation of the last part of the verse ignores what Paul has just said and teaches that Paul has an intense desire for his death so he could be with Christ.
No, Paul does not have an intense desire for his death because it would be of more benefit to the church. He is pressed between the two options and deems that personally for him to be with Christ is far better.
The man is limited already. He is in prison. His detractors are busying running around and damaging the churches which Paul has established. He is kind of as good as dead already. He cannot out of jail. There is little he can do to stop his enemies from bad mouthing him and tearing down the work he has built up.
To DIE And go ahead and be with Christ is for him PERSONALLY "far better".
But he chooses to not be martyred yet if it be God's will. Then he can do what he could NOT do if he were physically dead - continue with the churches to labor and serve them though at the moment he is severely restricted in this.
"And being confident of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith,
That your heart may abound in Christ Jesus in me through my coming again to you." (vs.25,26)
If he remains alive he can at least COME TO THEM.
If he is executed he cannot come to them.
As far as it is up to him, he chooses to remain alive that he may do what he has BEEN doing - traveling about visiting the churches he has established. He can come to them yet even more.
That traditional explanation makes no sense. If Paul had an intense desire to die so he could be with Christ, then he would not have been “torn” between living and dying.
Whether what I wrote is the "Traditional explanation" or not is secondary. It makes more sense then.
IE. " I am constrained between living and helping the churches or dying and helping the churches."
After all, he had just written that both living or dying would benefit the Church—and that was the very reason he was torn between them. If Paul knew that his death would benefit both the Church and himself too, then there was nothing for him to be “hard pressed,” or “torn” about. To properly understand the verse we need to see that the last phrase in the verse is introducing a third option that is much better than either living or dying: the return of Christ.
There is not a THIRD option. The much better choice is for him to continue pouring out his uncomfortable life in service by being able to come to them again to minister to them.
Dying would be of more personal benefit.
Remaining would be more consistent with his consecrated service in laboring for their progress in faith and joy.
"To remain in the flesh is more necessary for your sake." (v.24)
Remain in the flesh as opposed to be found naked and unclothed as an immaterial soul in physical death.
Your dichotomy is "in the flesh" verses "non-existence".
Philippians however contrasts in the flesh verses "with Christ".
1 edit
Jesus on the cross, spoke to the believing thief saying that in THAT DAY, he would be with Jesus in Paradise.
" And he said, Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.
And He said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:42,43)
If death was obliteration of the entire human being into non-existence why didn't Jesus say " Today you and i will not exist " ?
"Today you shall be with Me in Paradise"
1.) This doesn't sound like both would pass into non-existence.
2.) How can non-existence be called Paradise?
3.) Paradise does not have to be Heaven as God has many places.
4.) Jesus could not have meant the thief would be with Him in non-existence.
5.) Of what encouragement would it be to tell the believer he would be today non-existent? That would happen to the unbelieving thief as well if that is what death means.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThank you for your patient review. Perhaps I should say "Orthodox" teaching rather that traditional. Personally, I don't see much difference.This is articulated very well for me and what I believe is truth, and what the bible says, not church tradition.
I too am pressed between two matters today - whether to pursue this subject or go back to the thread's OP [b]Calling "Lord, Lord".
I will reply. The first thing I would say about your thoughtful paragraphs is that t ...[text shortened]... third party's input. Though that writer is not here to answer for him/herself what I might say.[/b]
I will reply to the rest of your post.
Originally posted by sonshipUnclothed or naked is irrelevant to me. The person is dead. There is no consciousness.
Ceckbaiter, before I back up and examine the foregoing paragraphs, i first want to deal with this antidote which does not apply to me.
[quote] The reason most Christians overlook the contradiction that their interpretation forces upon Philippians 1:23 is that they believe the Bible teaches that when a saved person dies he immediately goes to heave ...[text shortened]... d souls do not appear in heaven but man be clothed upon with the glorified body of resurrection.
The body and soul life die, the spirit goes back to God who gave it until Jesus returns or the Resurrection.
2 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiter
Unclothed or naked is irrelevant to me.
It may well be irrelevant to YOU. It was not irrelevant to the inspired Scripture.
On it we derive our faith as Christians.
The person is dead. There is no consciousness.
From personal experience, neither you nor I know that. Do we?
I need to listen to the revelation of God. God knows. Christ knows.
That is all the time I have this morning.
Originally posted by sonshipPaul is human, with emotions, but his first choice is to please God, serve the church at any cost. He did not count his life dear to him.
[quote] The reason Paul was torn between living and dying was that either one would benefit the church. He knew the church would benefit if he continued to live because he would be able to teach and support the believers. However, he also knew the church had benefited from his imprisonment (Phil 1:12), and it would also benefit from his death because believ ...[text shortened]... ysical death.
To live is Christ and to die is for me personal gaining of even MORE Christ. "
Paul today is dead and awaiting the return of Christ.
Originally posted by sonship
Jesus on the cross, spoke to the believing thief saying that in THAT DAY, he would be with Jesus in Paradise.[b] " And he said, Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.
And He said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:42,43)
If death was obliteration of the entire human bein ...[text shortened]... ay non-existent? That would happen to the unbelieving thief as well if that is what death means.[/b]Jesus could not have meant that "Today" you would be with with me in Paradise.
Jesus was in the grave 3 days and three nights, not in Paradise.
The verse is properly read as follows....
I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise. The punctuation is important.
Originally posted by sonshipI know what the bible says...Unclothed or naked is irrelevant to me.
It may well be irrelevant to YOU. It was not irrelevant to the inspired Scripture.
On it we derive our faith as Christians.
The person is dead. There is no consciousness.
From personal experience, neither you nor I know that. Do we?
I need to listen to the revelation of God. God knows. Christ knows.
That is all the time I have this morning.
Ps 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of You;
In the grave who will give You thanks?
NKJV
Eccl 9:10
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.
NKJV
Job 14:10-14
he breathes his last and is no more.
11 As water disappears from the sea
or a riverbed becomes parched and dry,
12 so man lies down and does not rise;
till the heavens are no more, men will not awake
or be roused from their sleep.
13 "If only you would hide me in the grave
and conceal me till your anger has passed!
If only you would set me a time
and then remember me!
14 If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my hard service
I will wait for my renewal to come.
NIV
David is not in heaven, nor Paradise either....
Acts 2:29-35
29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
'The Lord said to my Lord,
'Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'
NKJV