Suzana wrote:
But I don’t think anyone has addressed my question on the implications of the dual nature of man in reference to Paul’s trip into heaven, possibly minus his body.
RND then claimed that he and Paidion had both addressed it. I cannot find the place where they did so. They both wrote posts about the other statement of Paul about being "absent from the body" and being "present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:1-8)—which is not only a different passage, but even quite a different subject.
However, Suzana's question (which, ironically, was based upon RND's self-defeating quotation of 2 Corinthians 12:2-3—
see on page 3 of this thread) raises a more serious objection to RND and Paidion's position than even 2 Corinthians 5 does. The fact that Paul is speaking of an actual experience that either he or another man had undergone fourteen years previously, and that Paul could not decide whether the experience was an "out-of-body experience" or not, strongly suggests that Paul thought of out-of-body experiences as being in the category of "not an impossibility" (otherwise he would have known that this instance was not a case of such).
If Paul thought it possible that he (or someone else) had visited the "third heaven" and "Paradise" without having taken their bodies along on the trip, then what part of that person was consciously in heaven without their body? Perhaps we can say that Paul avoids the word "soul" or "spirit" in the passage, but that is irrelevant. There is a conscious self of some kind that Paul felt was capable of being apart from the body (even in heaven) and this part can see and hear things in heaven without (necessarily) being "in the body." This fits reasonably well with the idea that the body and the soul are separable entities. It does not seem to jibe with any alternative view, as near as my present understanding can grasp.
Suzana and I are still interested in hearing an actual response, rather than a dodge, concerning this verse.
There has been some discussion here about the correct punctuation of the promise Jesus gave to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). Did Jesus say, "Verily, verily,
I say unto you, Today..." or was it, "Verily, verily,
I say unto you today,..."? It would seem to me redundant for the comma to come after the word "today." If I count correctly, there are fourteen times in the gospels that contain Jesus' using the phrase "I say unto you..." It was a fairly common prelude to a solemn declaration. There is no other case where He redundantly added "today" as part of the phrase (as if His hearers did not know which day it was that they were hearing Him speak, and needed to be told that it was actually that very day).
If Jesus did add additional, unnecessary words to His usual statement when speaking to the thief on the cross, He must have just been feeling unusually chatty at that moment, and decided to use more words than usual to make the same point. I would have imagined that, given His condition at the moment, He would have been inclined to speak as briefly as possible to make His point. But then I have never been in that condition (hanging on a cross, I mean), so I might be mistaken.
The thief had mentioned
a time in which he hoped he might find blessing—"Remember me
when you come into your kingdom." Perhaps the thief thought the kingdom might be someday far off. Jesus seems to be addressing the very point about which the man was concerned. He was telling him that the day of His coming into His kingdom, and the thief coming along with Him, was to be "Today."
"Today you will be with me in Paradise." This makes considerable more sense to me.
RND has asked whether the thief got to heaven before Jesus. I think not. Jesus and the thief got to Paradise the same day, if Jesus' words are to be regarded as fulfilled. The identification of Paradise with heaven, in this case, is not required. Jesus' later declaration to Mary Magdalen, "I have yet to ascend to my Father," has been much misunderstood, I think. But that can await a more opportune time to be discussed.
On another note. You may have noticed that I have not contributed to the forum as much lately. I still visit and read what is being posted by others. However, it seems that the quality of discussion is not as mature as it once was, and it is sometimes annoying. Those who have been posting here for a long time still seem to be maintaining a high standard, and I appreciate that. However, somehow we seem to have picked up a few new participants who either have a chip on their shoulder, or else who want to push a denominational party line, without their providing any actual analysis of the biblical texts (or maybe they think that what they are providing is analysis, which is perhaps even more alarming!). What I am referring to as immaturity is the cocky, self-confident, and even abusive responses some newer members present to the calm and reasonable questions and cross examinations of others.
I am not sure exactly how to remedy this, without, perhaps, doing what they do in amusement parks, where they have a line drawn at a certain height and say, "If you are not taller than this line, you cannot go on this ride." I almost want to say, "If you are not grown-up enough to talk like a Christian to other Christians, you don't belong on this ride." It would be a real shame if the naughty little boys in the classroom, who want to put girls' pigtails into inkwells, were to drive away those who actually came here looking for an education.