Posted anonymously by: Ane

Glennspring

Enoch and Elijah NEVER died. Theologically there is no problem with them being translated, they will never participate in a resurrection so their translation into heaven doesn’t contradict 1 Cor. 15.

In Leviticus 23 we are taught about the required Feast of First Fruits. This shadow pointed to Christ and was even celebrated on Sunday, the very day of His resurrection. 1 Cor. 15 teaches Christ would be the first EVER to be resurrected with an imperishable body! If Moses was actually raised first, theologically that creates a huge problem, it contradicts Scripture’s plain and clear teaching that the first person to be resurrected with an imperishable body must be Christ!

Most of us grew up believing Moses was bodily resurrected from the grave with a perfect, imperishable, resurrection body just like we will get some day. But the question arises; do we really have any strong Biblical reason to believe Moses was the first person to be resurrected from the grave with an imperishable resurrection body? Let’s start with what the Bible has to say on the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:1-12:

We are told 3 things:

1. Moses died.
2. God buried Moses.
3. No one knows Moses’ burial place.

Not a single thing is said or even suggested about resurrecting Moses in a resurrection body. You would think that if such a significant event in history had occurred, the Bible might mention it.

Jude 9 is not proof of Moses’ resurrection! In context Jude 9 commands us to separate from false teachers!

A Jewish tradition arose stating that Michael the Archangel (and no, Michael is not Jesus as Adventism teaches, but that is another study) was assigned the task of burying Moses by God. According to this tradition, Michael and satan disputed over the body of Moses. This tradition was recorded in a noncanonical work called “The Testament of Moses.” Jude alludes to this tradition in his epistle about the burial of Moses. It should be noted that such an allusion to popular tradition does not mean that “The Testament of Moses” was inspired, only that Jude found this well-known story to be helpful in illustrating the point he was making.

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” –Jude 1:9 (NASB)

Jude’s point in using this illustration has nothing to do with Moses at all. Rather Jude is making a point about showing proper fear and respect regarding spiritual beings that are more powerful than we are. But what I want us to note is that Jude is not saying that Michael resurrected Moses. To the contrary he is alluding to a Jewish tradition that said that Michael buried Moses.

I find it ironic that the SDA church finds support in the book of Jude for 2 false teachings ... both Moses’ resurrection & Michael the arch angel representing Christ when the book of Jude commands us to separate from false teachers.

Now let’s look at what God tells Joshua after the death of Moses.

Now it came about after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, that the LORD spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ servant, saying, “Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel. –Joshua 1:1-2 (NASB)

God just said Moses is DEAD. There is no hint whatsoever that Moses has been resurrected in a resurrection body. If this had happened, how could God say that Moses was “dead” in any sense of the word? Surely after we have our resurrection bodies we will no longer be referred to as “dead!” Compare what God says about Moses to what the angels say about Jesus at His resurrection:

“Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen.” – Luke 24:6-7

HUGE difference! God simply says Moses is dead, but when Jesus arises from the dead with a resurrection body the angels make it clear He is not among the dead, He is “living.”

But the biggest reason I don’t think it’s theologically possible for Moses to have risen from the grave with a resurrection body. If Moses had risen from the grave with a resurrection body then he would be the first fruits from the dead and not Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us clearly Jesus is the first fruits from the dead.

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, –1 Corinthians 15:20-23 (NASB)

Other people in the Bible had been brought back to life after dying, but they all eventually died again. It was Jesus who was risen first from the grave with a perfect imperishable resurrection body guaranteeing that one day we will have resurrection bodies just like His. If Moses had done it first, then Jesus would not be the first fruits from the dead.

So here is a summary of the reasons I think it is highly unlikely Moses was resurrected from the grave with a resurrection body:

1. The Bible never says Moses was resurrected; only that he was buried.

2. The Bible specifically calls Moses “dead.”

3. No Jewish tradition claims Moses was resurrected with a resurrection body, only that Michael buried him.

4. Jesus is the first fruits from the dead, the first to have an imperishable resurrection body, not Moses.

So why were we taught Moses rose from the grave with a resurrection body? We were taught that because of this account in the Gospels which is rather embarrassing for SDA theology.

The transfiguration creates no problems whatsoever for evangelical Christian theology because Christianity has always believed the dead do not cease to exist, but are consciously awaiting resurrection. So to have Moses appearing with Christ raises no problems at all for them because it is in harmony with the rest of what the Bible says on death.

But it creates a HUGE problem to have Moses appear at the Transfiguration if you teach there is no spirit and death is a state of non-existence. If you teach that, then you have to find a way to explain how Moses could be dead and also be at the transfiguration. The only way out of such a thorny dilemma is to invent a story that Moses was resurrected. Never mind that the Bible never says any such thing. This seems to be a necessary invention if you are going to maintain that there is no spirit and people are non-existent at death. 

BTW: The SDA Clear Word Bible has added Moses’ resurrection right into the text in Deut. 34, never mind that no Bible ever says that!

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Glennspring

Enoch and Elijah NEVER died. Theologically there is no problem with them being translated, they will never participate in a resurrection so their translation into heaven doesn’t contradict 1 Cor. 15.

In Leviticus 23 we are taught about the required Feast of First Fruits. This shadow pointed to Christ and was even celebrated on Sunday, the very day of His resurrection. 1 Cor. 15 teaches Christ would be the first EVER to be resurrected with an imperishable body! If Moses was actually raised first, theologically that creates a huge problem, it contradicts Scripture’s plain and clear teaching that the first person to be resurrected with an imperishable body must be Christ!

Most of us grew up believing Moses was bodily resurrected from the grave with a perfect, imperishable, resurrection body just like we will get some day. But the question arises; do we really have any strong Biblical reason to believe Moses was the first person to be resurrected from the grave with an imperishable resurrection body? Let’s start with what the Bible has to say on the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:1-12:

We are told 3 things:

1. Moses died.
2. God buried Moses.
3. No one knows Moses’ burial place.

Not a single thing is said or even suggested about resurrecting Moses in a resurrection body. You would think that if such a significant event in history had occurred, the Bible might mention it.

Jude 9 is not proof of Moses’ resurrection! In context Jude 9 commands us to separate from false teachers!

A Jewish tradition arose stating that Michael the Archangel (and no, Michael is not Jesus as Adventism teaches, but that is another study) was assigned the task of burying Moses by God. According to this tradition, Michael and satan disputed over the body of Moses. This tradition was recorded in a noncanonical work called “The Testament of Moses.” Jude alludes to this tradition in his epistle about the burial of Moses. It should be noted that such an allusion to popular tradition does not mean that “The Testament of Moses” was inspired, only that Jude found this well-known story to be helpful in illustrating the point he was making.

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” –Jude 1:9 (NASB)

Jude’s point in using this illustration has nothing to do with Moses at all. Rather Jude is making a point about showing proper fear and respect regarding spiritual beings that are more powerful than we are. But what I want us to note is that Jude is not saying that Michael resurrected Moses. To the contrary he is alluding to a Jewish tradition that said that Michael buried Moses.

I find it ironic that the SDA church finds support in the book of Jude for 2 false teachings ... both Moses’ resurrection & Michael the arch angel representing Christ when the book of Jude commands us to separate from false teachers.

Now let’s look at what God tells Joshua after the death of Moses.

Now it came about after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, that the LORD spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ servant, saying, “Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel. –Joshua 1:1-2 (NASB)

God just said Moses is DEAD. There is no hint whatsoever that Moses has been resurrected in a resurrection body. If this had happened, how could God say that Moses was “dead” in any sense of the word? Surely after we have our resurrection bodies we will no longer be referred to as “dead!” Compare what God says about Moses to what the angels say about Jesus at His resurrection:

“Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen.” – Luke 24:6-7

HUGE difference! God simply says Moses is dead, but when Jesus arises from the dead with a resurrection body the angels make it clear He is not among the dead, He is “living.”

But the biggest reason I don’t think it’s theologically possible for Moses to have risen from the grave with a resurrection body. If Moses had risen from the grave with a resurrection body then he would be the first fruits from the dead and not Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us clearly Jesus is the first fruits from the dead.

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, –1 Corinthians 15:20-23 (NASB)

Other people in the Bible had been brought back to life after dying, but they all eventually died again. It was Jesus who was risen first from the grave with a perfect imperishable resurrection body guaranteeing that one day we will have resurrection bodies just like His. If Moses had done it first, then Jesus would not be the first fruits from the dead.

So here is a summary of the reasons I think it is highly unlikely Moses was resurrected from the grave with a resurrection body:

1. The Bible never says Moses was resurrected; only that he was buried.

2. The Bible specifically calls Moses “dead.”

3. No Jewish tradition claims Moses was resurrected with a resurrection body, only that Michael buried him.

4. Jesus is the first fruits from the dead, the first to have an imperishable resurrection body, not Moses.

So why were we taught Moses rose from the grave with a resurrection body? We were taught that because of this account in the Gospels which is rather embarrassing for SDA theology.

The transfiguration creates no problems whatsoever for evangelical Christian theology because Christianity has always believed the dead do not cease to exist, but are consciously awaiting resurrection. So to have Moses appearing with Christ raises no problems at all for them because it is in harmony with the rest of what the Bible says on death.

But it creates a HUGE problem to have Moses appear at the Transfiguration if you teach there is no spirit and death is a state of non-existence. If you teach that, then you have to find a way to explain how Moses could be dead and also be at the transfiguration. The only way out of such a thorny dilemma is to invent a story that Moses was resurrected. Never mind that the Bible never says any such thing. This seems to be a necessary invention if you are going to maintain that there is no spirit and people are non-existent at death. 

BTW: The SDA Clear Word Bible has added Moses’ resurrection right into the text in Deut. 34, never mind that no Bible ever says that!

Ane,

That Moses was dead for a time is not in dispute. So for God to inform Joshua of that fact is not in itself cause for believing that God did not raise Moses later.

As for Jude 9, I don’t think your rationale is conclusive.  Why would Satan dispute with Michael the Archangel about the burying of Moses? The only reason for a dispute would be if Michael was raising Moses.

Anyway, I don’t think there’s any way to conclusively decide the precise meaning of these verses. Good people of faith and various levels of aptitude and resources will come to different conclusions. But to say one side is definitely lying borders on the inflammatory and I think is highly suspect.

Thanks Ane for an excellent summary of the theological difficulties with Moses being given a Resurrection body. This idea only comes from Ellen White. I am not aware of any other church or denomination that teaches Moses was given a resurrection body.

I think it is quite ironic, that SDAs teach that Moses had this body, thereby making him the firstfruits rather than Jesus. But the parallel is that SDAs emphasize the teachings of Moses over the teachings of Christ, especially with regard to the food laws, which Jesus , Himself said were done away with in Mark 7:15-23.

There is nothing in the Jude 9 verse that would suggest that Moses was resurrected.

This brings up the question of the intermediate state, because how else would Moses appear on the mount? Even though I don’t believe in the eternal conscious torment doctrine, it is texts like these that certainly make the intermediate state doctrine probable. But, the doctrine of soul sleep vs. intermediate state I won’t make a dividing line, because I have seen good arguments on both sides.

However, Guibox, Oscar Cullman, whom you quoted does not exactly teach soul sleep the way SDAs do. Cullman allows for an intermediate state that is basically a quiet sleep of the inner man, awaiting the resurrection, not already walking the streets of gold, as others teach. SDAs, believe that the soul ceases to exist until the resurrection.

I am of the opinion that arguing over the nature of the intermediate state is not profitable.

Stan

Hi Glenn,

Just saw your post where you said:

“Anyway, I don’t think there’s any way to conclusively decide the precise meaning of these verses. Good people of faith and various levels of aptitude and resources will come to different conclusions. But to say one side is definitely lying borders on the inflammatory and I think is highly suspect.”
---------------------------------------------

I agree that using certain terminology can be inflammatory, but many former Adventists are dealing with the fact that the church did cover-up and lie about Ellen White, which even some of the church’s own scholars admit. There is a point when some righteous anger is appropriate.

Stan

Stan,

What I would concede is that Adventism has tended to try to be certain about some things that upon closer examination lend themselves to reasonable alternative interpretations.

And I readily admit that this posture has resulted in creating a backlash of opposing certainties.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Obviously we have gotten quite side tracked from the sanctuary topic at hand and I don’t know how to go about moving this debate to another
thread.

glennspring,

Can you really not understand why this teaching regarding Moses’ resurrection blatantly contradicts 1 Cor. 15 and feels entirely deceptive to me? 1 Cor. 15 is a huge clue that is pivotal in sorting out the reliability of that teaching! I can’t ignore, dismiss or minimize it as irrelevant.

In Leviticus 23 we are told the Feast of First Fruits was a holy convocation the Israelites were required to observe. We know it was a shadow pointing to Christ’s resurrection. It is as significant as the Day of Atonement shadow which pointed to the cross. These shadows help us recognize THE Messiah. Christ had to FULFILL these shadows with 100% ACCURACY. To come along and say Moses can trump this particular shadow just sends chills down my spine, and something rises up within me that says “Do everything you can to protect the integrity of Scripture.” If we let this teaching slide as harmless we DO NOT have a 100% accurate fulfillment of the shadows pointing specifically to Christ and that would no longer make the Bible a reliable tool we can use with unbelievers to prove Christ is the Messiah.

Can you truly give me one single reasonable explanation that would make this teaching of Moses allowable or tolerable when it directly interferes with the SIGNIFICANCE of Christ being the first fruit of the resurrected dead with imperishable bodies? I truly just want to understand what makes you justify clinging to that teaching?

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Stan you said:

I think it is quite ironic, that SDAs teach that Moses had this body, thereby making him the firstfruits rather than Jesus. But the parallel is that SDAs emphasize the teachings of Moses over the teachings of Christ, especially with regard to the food laws, which Jesus , Himself said were done away with in Mark 7:15-23.

VERY INTERESTING OBSERVATION INDEED!!!!!!

Ane

This seems to be the argument..

1) Moses couldn’t have been resurrected imperishable because Christ is the first fruits.

Okay.

So what exactly is the context of 1 Corinthians 15? It is not simply about a ‘body’. It is about the inheritance of eternal life. Ane, what your argument assumes is the validity of the soul separate from the body inheriting eternal life before the body.

You completely ignore that the resurrection was necessary by Christ to provide eternal life...period. not simply to receive an eternal body. To Paul in this entire passage, they are one and the same Without the resurrection of Christ, the ‘dead raise not’. If the ‘dead raise not’ then we ‘are yet in our sins’

And here’s the kicker ladies and gents…

“Then they that are asleep in Christ have perished”

The formula is simple:

* Christ not raised - - righteous not raised - - eternal life not granted - - the dead have perished.

Eternal life is only realized at the resurrection. Without it there is only death.

If Moses went to heaven as an imperishable soul, it still contradicts the full meaning of what Christ’s resurrection is supposed to do An eternal soul still negates the validity of 1 Corinthians 15 and the importance Paul places on the resurrection.

Your argument is therefore mute, Ane.

Stan,

I know that Cullman’s view differs from the traditional Adventist view but the fact remains that the immortality of the soul is not a biblical concept. Tyndale’s arguments against it in his dialogue with Thomas More is so logical and simple that it defies explanation why so many call it ‘cultic’ and ignore it to make one or two ambiguous texts their foundation.

And Ane, for someone who seems to be afraid to debate this topic, you seem to want to share your opinion on the matter quite freely. I’m going to assume that you meant you don’t want a formal debate on the matter.

If there is interest in looking at this doctrine closer, I am more than happy to start another thread. And Stan, though I respect you tremendously, I disagree with the view that arguing about this is not profitable. It is only not profitable when opinions and tradition dictate truth as opposed to a serious exegetical study in the word of God.

It is only not profitable when the ‘If one thing is wrong in the SDA church, it’s ALL wrong” mentality takes over and the ‘cult’ card is played despite the amounts of biblical evidence against the immortality of the soul and the myriads of non-SDA scholars throughout the last 500 years have believed in conditional immortality.

It is only close minded and elitest thinking that calls an argument into futility. If people just put their preconceived notions aside and look atthe evidence, it can be very profitable.

That is how we learn. That is how we have come to the conclusions we have and have changed our opinions on certain matter. It comes from dialogue and study.

And I believe that the deception of the afterlife is a VERY important and relevant topic today.

However, I will not push arguing this further if it will cause contention and strife.

I just get tired of hearing former Adventists dumping all over every doctrine because they feel ‘deceived’ and then throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Posted anonymously by: Ane

guibox

Let me apologize, I can tell from the tone of your posts I have offended you with my OCD passion on this subject. I believe Stan has picked up on that too and that is where I’d guess he is coming from in regards to this not being a profitable discussion ... we are sounding argumentative. I apologize for setting that tone!

I’m not avoiding a state of the dead debate with you because I’m “afraid” to take you on with it ... that just isn’t the issue I need resolution on. I’m at total peace with where I’ve landed on this page in the hymnal. So lets drop the state of the dead topic. Lets stick with one thing at a time. We are off on way too many tangents albeit they are somehow all intertwined and related.

I’ve been challenged to defend why I’m upset about the Moses resurrection teaching. Right now I’m stuck on the fact that Moses was raised with an imperishable body BEFORE Christ was. I see this teaching as interfering with the fact that Christ was to be the FIRST one raised with an imperishable body. If the resurrection did not happen in that order, then that would mean Christ DID NOT fulfill the shadows pointing to Him with 100% accuracy. I cannot accept that He only fulfilled them with 99.9999% accuracy. I need the 100%!

Ane,

I’m sorry if I was starting to get snarky.

The problem here is that we are thinking that we can understand everything God does and that it must fit into our paradigm of thinking.

This is the bottom line.

The disciples saw Moses and Elijah standing next to Christ.

Therefore either

1) The disciples were hallucinating
2) Moses was there in physical body
3) Moses was there in spirit

I think we can rule out 1).

To accept 3) we must realize that scripture:

a) Offers no support that there is a conscious, thinking, cogitating, bodiless existence of man up in heaven at this moment

b) Supports bodily resurrection to eternal life both in Old and New Testament

c) We must also believe that Elijah was there as a “ghost” as well

Now we know that Elijah was taken to heaven in a bodily form so why in the world would he be there as a ‘spirit’?

Therefore we must accept 2) as the logical and biblical conclusion.

According to you we have a problem with 1 Corinthians 15 if this is true. However, there is no feasible alternative to the matter, Ane. Simply saying that “This must be Moses’ soul’ because for it to be his body is to contradict Christ as the first fruits”, is not an acceptable stance to take unless one can seriously prove it from the bible and take it simply because we can’t properly explain or want to believe the alternative.

Therefore, we must conclude that Moses was taken to heaven in some bodily form that does not negate Christ as the first fruits of immortal resurrection. If Elijah received immortality in an incorruptible body, the process of Christ rising first and receving an immortal body as first fruits is still 50% corrupted as Elijah also is incorruptible now.

Unless both Elijah and Moses have not put on the truly incorruptible body that Christ’s resurrection offers.

The fact is: is that we do NOT KNOW how God arranged it, what body he gave them and how it would NOT corrupt Christ’s role in the resurrection to life.

What we do know according to the Bible and what the bible does NOT support, is that Moses bodiless ‘soul’ existed outside his body and is now in heaven.

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

[quote author="guibox"]Ane,

This is the bottom line.

The disciples saw Moses and Elijah standing next to Christ.

Therefore either

1) The disciples were hallucinating
2) Moses was there in physical body
3) Moses was there in spirit

I think we can rule out 1).

To accept 3) we must realize that scripture:

a) Offers no support that there is a conscious, thinking, cogitating, bodiless existence of man up in heaven at this moment

b) Supports bodily resurrection to eternal life both in Old and New Testament

c) We must also believe that Elijah was there as a “ghost” as well

Now we know that Elijah was taken to heaven in a bodily form so why in the world would he be there as a ‘spirit’?

Therefore we must accept 2) as the logical and biblical conclusion.

I wouldn’t be so sure, guibox. You left out #4.

4) The disciples experienced a vision.

See Matthew 17:9.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Pastor Williams

In regards to this EGW quote you feel I have taken out of context:

“Those who accept the Savior, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved.” –Christ’s Object lessons, p. 155.

Here is the entire quote in context:

Peter’s fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation. God’s word declares, “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried.” Dan. 12:10. Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life. (James 1:12.)

[You said: She is talking about people who have false faith.]

Peter had weak faith, but not false faith! Note Christ’s very words to Peter when Peter fell:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, WHEN once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” –Luke 22:32

Christ said to Peter WHEN you come back to Me not IF you come back. Christ was able to instantly judge Peter’s heart. He knew Peter’s faith was weak not false! Christ’s words to Peter imply Peter never lost his savlation over his mistake.

[You said: They put their faith in themselves and think they are above temptation. The sentences before and after the one cited make this very very very very clear. What is wrong with telling people not to say they are saved from temptation? Yes, that is the bottom line of what she is telling us. That is not telling them not to have faith in God’s love and power to save them.
She is teaching both never feel safe from temptation and she is also actually teaching don’t ever “feel” saved!]

I actually agree with her, we should never feel safe from temptation. I just disagree with her that we should never feel saved!!!! Falling into temptation does not automatically negate our salvation.

I must respectfully disagree with you that I’m taking that particular statement out of context! That was exactly what she meant was we are never to feel saved.

Posted anonymously by: Ane Edwards

guibox

You said: The problem here is that we are thinking that we can understand everything God does and that it must fit into our paradigm of thinking.

Obviously there are many mysteries we can’t figure out. Fortunately this is not one of them! God left us a big clue! He wanted us to be certain who the Messiah was, so He first gave Israel a specific shadow that pointed toward Christ and then gave a specific statement that Christ would fulfill that shadow first.

You keep trying to make this Moses resurrection issue be about the state of the dead ... but that is NOT the aspect I’m focused on! I’m making this an issue about the significance of WHO the first fruit shadow pointed towards and WHO was expected to fulfill it first. Why won’t you deal with this contradiction?

As to the state of the dead you said: We must realize that scripture offers no support that there is a conscious, thinking, cogitating, bodiless existence of man up in heaven at this moment.

The following comment was shared with me by a friend when I was wrestling with this issue. Since I cannot say it any better than him, I’ll just copy and paste his words here ... but this exactly represents my thought in regards to your last comment.

Jesus told a parable about the rich man, Lazarus and Abraham. All were dead and communicating with each other. Some try to dismiss this story by saying, “Well, it’s only a parable and the main point isn’t the state of the dead.” It may very well only be a parable, but if it is, then it is the only recorded parable of Jesus where he uses names for the characters. We cannot dismiss the significance of the illustration Jesus is using here. Assuming this is a parable, then we can say that Jesus’ parables ALWAYS made use of something TRUE from life to illustrate an even greater spiritual TRUTH. It just doesn’t work to say that Jesus was illustrating a truth by using a falsehood. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “You know that point I was making, well it was a true point, but the way I went about making it was absolutely false. In fact, I was using an illustration that is a satanic lie to make my point. My illustration is dangerous spiritualism, but the point is still valid.” Why would Jesus say something that was completely false and thereby mislead generations of Christians who would come after Him? Why would he wait until the 1840s to raise up a group to correct the misconception he started over 1800 year’s before? That’s a long time to leave Christians confused and misled by a satanic illustration from Him.

It almost feels like blasphemy to write the paragraph I just did, and yet that’s essentially what those who try to explain away this story are saying when you peel away all their layers of double talk. We’re talking about God in the flesh. We’re talking about the greatest teacher, preacher, and prophet to ever walk among us. This is the illustration He chose and the people in His illustration are conscious and communicative at death. If we accuse other teachers and preachers of spiritualism and promoting the lies of satan when they say such things, should we accuse Jesus of the same thing?

This isn’t “spiritualism.” It reflects a spiritual reality that Christ knew to be true and the rest of the Bible confirms. Although I would not want to make a story like this the primary source of my doctrine, Jesus’ illustration fits perfectly with the rest of His teaching and the didactic teaching of His apostles so I can accept this story as representing spiritual reality. I believe we have been guilty of falsely accusing some of our Christian brothers and sisters of spiritualism for preaching and teaching things the Bible itself preaches and teaches. I personally believe that at death I will be consciously with the Lord awaiting the resurrection of my perfect imperishable body.

My point Ane seemed to have been lost on you for some reason. Let me try again.

We really don’t know how or in what form Moses was resurrected in. It could have been just like Elijah. Did Elijah have a Christ-body? If so, about 50% of the ‘first fruits thunder’ has already been stolen from 1 Corinthians 15.

The facts are that Moses is not our Savior. Nobody in the NT reading Paul’s words who would have understood a ‘special resurrection’ that Moses experienced would have gotten that mixed up or confused with Christ. A special resurrection occured at Christ’s resurrection. You seem to have an issue that Moses wasn’t just raised, but that he was raised and THEN went to heaven.

However, Moses did not abolish death by his resurrection. Christ did. Moses was not the first to conquer death for all mankind. Christ did.

As for the old ‘absent from the body is to be present with the Lord’ argument, this is a sad example of a ‘one passage wonder’ that people ignore the context of the surrounding passages and use gratuitous assumptions in place of sound hermeutic. First of all, nowhere are the words ‘psuche’ for ‘soul’ or ‘pnuema’ for ‘spirit’ even used in this passage at all (even though those terms still cannot be used to mean an ‘immaterial, conscious existence’. When one reads the last 6 or so verses of 2 Corinthians 4, and then the first 5 verses of chapter 5, then compare it to 1 Corinthians 15:35-45, we see that Paul is apeaking of a resurrection body and not a disembodied soul.

As for the parable of the rich man and Lazarus...You might as well base the Investigative Judgment on a reading of Daniel 8:14 too.

The methodology is the same.

The lack of biblical support for the one passage is the same.

The contradictions from the rest of the bible are the same.

There is waaaaaay more to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus then meets the eye at a cursory glance. To say this parable ‘speaks of the afterlife’ is to say that a Van Gogh, Rembrandt or Picasso merely has ‘pretty colors’ in it.

L.Ray Smith has a paper that lays out the details of Luke 16 and what Christ ws preaching about, to whom and why. He is a universalist and I don’t believe in universalism but his biblical study and reasoning on this matter is incredibly sound.

It is lengthy but I strongly encourage you and many others here to read it.

http://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html