Well, first, I don’t think arguing that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were “alive” in a disembodied state would “go a long way toward making an argument for the resurrection.” For if I’m not mistaken, one of the most widely-known and prominently-held views in that day among the Gentiles and Hellenized Jews was Plato’s belief in the “immortality of the soul.” According to Plato, there was no need for a resurrection since those who died weren’t really dead. Their bodies were “dead,” but the persons themselves (i.e., their immortal soul) did not and could not die. According to this view, the “immortal soul” was thought to be the real person, and the body was considered to be a clog or hindrance - a “prison house” for the soul. And if a person’s soul is in fact the actual person himself (i.e., where the locus of personal identity and consciousness is found), and the soul cannot die but is immortal, then the person is not in need of a resurrection (i.e., a restoration to a living existence), for a resurrection is only for those who are considered “dead.” According to Plato’s view, being re-embodied would’ve actually been considered undesirable and unnecessary. So I would suggest that if the Sadducees had understood Jesus to be saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could be considered “alive” apart from their being raised from the dead, they would’ve understood him to be affirming a more-or-less Platonistic view of human nature, and would’ve thus concluded that Jesus saw no need for a bodily resurrection. So I don’t think arguing that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were “alive” in a disembodied state would’ve been considered a very compelling argument in favour of the resurrection, since there was such a well-known resurrection alternative in that day that would’ve probably had much stronger appeal to those who already had reservations concerning the doctrine of the resurrection. But since Jesus introduces his quote from Exodus 3:6 with, “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush,” I doubt the Sadducees would’ve understood Jesus to be talking about anything but embodied life when he spoke of God as being the God of the living rather than the dead. Which leads me to my second point:
The “life” to which Christ is referring in his response to the Sadducees is, I believe, meant to be understood as the opposite of the “death” in view, and the “death” is clearly that state which places a person in need of a resurrection. In other words, the “death” that Christ has in view is the cessation of bodily existence. Thus, the “life” should best be understood as the restoration of bodily existence. In Luke’s account of Jesus’ response to the Sadducees we read,
“The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.”
So what category of persons is God not said to be the God of? Answer: “The dead.” And who are they? Answer: Those whose physical, bodily existence has ceased, and who are thus in need of a resurrection so that they “cannot die anymore.” Thus, the “living” are those who are not in need of being restored to physical, bodily existence. So in what sense do “all live to God?” Answer: In anticipation and view of the resurrection of the dead, all live to God. That is, because the resurrection is so certain to take place, God views those who have died and all who are going to die as if they have already been restored to physical, bodily existence - which is why God was able to say to Moses, “I am (present tense) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” While these three men were dead at the time, God spoke as if they had already been restored to life because he knew they would be.
I think the general tenor of Scripture supports my view, and see “all the references to some form of consciousness after death” (which I think are actually less numerous than you may think) in a similar way as Universalists view the texts that many believe refer to and support ECT. As for the reasoning behind holding to my viewpoint, I believe it is most consistent with my observation and experience, and with what is revealed in the Bible. I try not to start with what I’d prefer to be true and then see if Scripture supports it. Rather, I start with what my own observation and experience teaches me, and then look to Scripture to see if it confirms or challenges what I would believe apart from a divine revelation. And in the case of the dead being conscious, I’ve found that Scripture confirms rather than challenges what my observation and experience teaches me.
Okay, I’ll come back and read this later when I have time, but for now I wanted to make Jesus’ argument clear:
God said, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Jesus’ point was that because of the present tense of that statement, God was right THEN God of those three because He was God of the living and thus they were alive THEN. There was absolutely nothing in that statement about Him being their God that references anything remotely close to a future resurrection event. It would’ve made no sense to the Sadducees to say, “God said He was their God THEN at that moment because He is the God of the Living, even though they don’t exist now and didn’t exist then but will someday.”
I think this is a huge flaw in our modern day abstract, conceptualized logic. We don’t often see arguments like that, but it should be clear from the text.
I think we’re kind of dead now. (hmm. how can you be “kind of” dead? lol)
Imagine dying and you realize that dying is really just being born into REAL life.
Maybe we who are alive are actually the dead ones, not the ones who have passed on…
Well the only reason that I think anyone should step down from their opinion is if they find their opinion to be in conflict with the way things really are. I’ve provided just a few reasons and arguments for why I think your opinion on the subject of man’s nature and post-mortem state is erroneous. If you failed to find my reasons compelling or my arguments sound (and it’s more than evident to me that you have!), then I think you should by all means retain your opinion. But just keep in mind that a preference or deep desire for your opinions to be correct does not make them so. And of course this goes both ways; it just seems that your desire for your views to be correct and mine wrong is a good deal more intense than my desire for your views to be wrong and mine correct. It is you, after all, who so strongly feels his opponent’s view to be utterly repugnant, calling it “the most hideous thing to come out of theology since Eternal Damnation” and saying “I hate your view” (etc.). Such strong words betray a strong desire for your views to be correct and mine wrong, and it’s possible for such a strong desire to distort one’s perception of the facts, and to lead one to ignore both the weaknesses in one’s own position and the strengths in another’s.
As for your repeated assertion that, according to my view, you are your body, this simply isn’t true. According to my view (which is known as the “constitution view”), you are constituted by your body, but you are not your body. Subtle difference, I know. But the difference matters more than I think you realize. On a smaller and less significant scale, it would be like saying the Statue of Liberty is just a bunch of copper and steel. But only a fool would make such a statement. The Statue of Liberty is constituted by copper and steel, but it is so much more than a big lump of elements and alloys. Or consider the Bible. The Bible is constituted by paper and ink and binding (etc.), but as you know it is so much more than paper and ink and binding. Scripture is said to be “inspired,” and the words on the pages of Scripture reveal the very mind, heart and plan of God. Similarly, while you are constituted by your physical body (which is itself constituted by the elements from which it was created by God), you are more than your body, and you cannot be strictly identified with it. Just as the Statue of Liberty and the Bible “transcend” the matter by which they are constituted, so you, as a human person bearing God’s image, transcend the matter by which you are constituted. In fact, I believe you transcend the matter by which you are constituted to a much greater degree than either the Statue of Liberty or the Bible transcends the matter by which they are constituted. The matter by which you are constituted has been so modified and organized by God as to make you not only an animate being (a “living soul”) but a being who bears God’s image and shares his likeness. According to my view, you are a human person - a unique self with a first-person perspective, rational self-awareness and the capacity to feel and think and love. It’s true that I believe you and I are “dependent” on our physical body for our consciousness and personal identity, but I think that’s true in the same sense that you think we are “dependent” on our immortal soul for our consciousness and personal identity.
For a good critique of the “substance dualism” view of human nature (which you’ve been defending) and a solid (I think) defence of the “constitution view” to which I hold, I highly recommend the book Rethinking Human Nature by Kevin J. Corcoran. There is actually an image of this book on the forum (viewforum.php?f=20), although I doubt the image is there because the book is endorsed by the forum (although I think it should be! ).
Alright…moving on then.
Again, I encourage you to check out the book if possible. According to the Constitution View, a human person is constituted by a physical body, but he is not identical to his body.
What’s ironic is that later on in your response you criticize me for “oversimplifying things.” But I would argue that the majority of your responses to me in this discussion have been an example of you doing just that.
How so?
Well I appreciate you at least taking the time read what I wrote, even if you still think I was wasting my time typing up my response because it all just “dwindles down” to us either being “just our body, or more than our body.” I disagree, and think you’re oversimplifying things.
Are you serious? I’ve tried to respond to almost everything you’ve presented me.
How does what I say above make Christ a liar? When Christ said that the “gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, was he saying that Christians wouldn’t physically die? Because that’s how a person enters Sheol/Hades. And the only way to exit Sheol/Hades is to cease being physically dead, because physically dying is how you enter Sheol/Hades. When Christ said that the “gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, I believe he was simply saying that his Church would not ultimate die out over time and vanish from the face of the earth as a result of the violent opposition that would inevitably be coming against it.
Your repeated assertion that this discussion can be narrowed down to “just my body, or more than my body” sounds pretty black and white to me.
It’s true that finity does not “necessitate lack of transcendency,” but this doesn’t explain why you think human beings must be transcendent in order to bear God’s image. To say, “I see no reason why they shouldn’t be transcendent” doesn’t explain why, either. One could respond by saying, “Well I see no reason why man shouldn’t be omniscient or omnipotent, or exist in a wholly ‘spiritual,’ non-embodied state.” But this wouldn’t explain why human beings must be omniscient or omnipotent or exist in a non-embodied state to bear God’s image.
According to my view, man is constituted by a “machine” (i.e., his human body), but he isn’t “just a machine.” The “machine” by which he is constituted makes it possible for him to think and reason and feel and love, but the machine isn’t thinking and reasoning and feeling and loving; the human person is.
But previously you said you didn’t think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love. So if it’s possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an immortal soul, then man doesn’t require an immortal soul to do this. Correct?
Did you use your brain to do the above?
How does that answer my question? Thinking rationally, being self-aware, loving and having dominion over lower forms of life also “reflects God’s fundamental being,” does it not? And if man can do these things without an “immortal soul” that transcends space/matter/time, then man can reflect God’s fundamental being without an “immortal soul” that transcends space/matter/time.
If I thought I understood your position as well as you did, I wouldn’t have asked the question. The reason I asked the question is so you could clarify. You said “the Man is the thing transcendent” but then say “his body is just a part of him.” So if the body is a “part” of man, then wouldn’t it follow that it is the other “part” of man that is transcendent? IOW, man is only partly transcendent. If he was fully transcendent, then every part of him would be transcendent. So do you think the part of man that is transcendent is transcendent in the same sense that you think God is transcendent?
I must be missing the obvious then, because I seriously don’t see how your translation makes it any more apparent that the “life” of which Christ speaks in this verse has anything to do with a continued conscious existence after physical death in a disembodied state. That is what you were trying to demonstrate with your translation, right?
Do you think the Bible in any way “transcends” the matter by which it is constituted? Surely you don’t see the Bible as just a book, let alone just a collection of atoms.
God is not embodied or partly mortal or limited in knowledge or limited in power or able to lie, so why should his children be?
I think you’re begging the question a bit here, Justin. Your understanding of Jesus’ argument seems to presuppose that there is no possible sense in which God could consider himself the God of those who are presently dead while also being “God of the living” rather than “God of the dead.” But this presupposition is, I believe, erroneous. God sometimes speaks of things which are not yet present realities as if they were because it is so certain that they are going to take place by his sovereign power. For example, in Romans 4:16-18 (NKJV) we read,
Even before the birth of the promised child Isaac, God told Abraham, “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5). Was Abraham “the father of a multitude of nations” at the time God spoke to Abraham? No; God was speaking in view of the fact that he was going to fulfill this promise made to Abraham, and that Abraham would, in fact, become the father of a multitude of nations.
Similarly, I believe that when God spoke of himself as the God of three men who were dead rather than alive, he was speaking in view of the fact that he was ultimately going to restore them to a living existence at a future time (and I believe Jesus recognized this fact). IOW, just as it was certain that Abraham would become “the father of a multitude of nations” (even though he was not yet the father of a multitude of nations), so it was certain that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would live again. Because God knew that he was going to restore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to a living existence and that they would not remain dead forever, God was able to refer to himself as their God in the present tense without contradicting the fact that “He is not God of the dead but of the living.”
I am feeling better, almost through it anyway. Thanks for asking.
I am considering deleting the rest of this post, as I am not yet sure of the fruitfulness of this particular path of the discussion, having thought to attempt to start it again on a different path that may be more enriching, and less distasteful for both of us. It is only up for now, as I am not yet certain which parts of it I want to remain for reference sake or for posterity sake for future readers. Thank you for the discussion in this area, it has at least been somewhat engaging, though enraging at the first.
Edit: Post deleted, though I may add parts of it from a back up later to a later post for reference sake, and posterity. I don’t feel it is fruitful to continue this road of discussion; it isn’t leading to understanding between us, or our views (and why I find such displeasure with soulsleep).
I will freely admit that I do not understand everything, or even most of everything even in this subject. The previous post I gave (and deleted) I don’t feel will help either of us in this discussion or bring any level of understanding between us (there are too many barriers and too many complications and complexities in our very polar worldviews on this subject, we’re not speaking the same language I feel), so I will try to give a simple thesis statements as to what I believe, and maybe we can try to work from that in this discussion. I will even try to compromise (where in your view I can find agreement with) a bit to see where I can find common ground with you, and so maybe you can find common ground with me and see what it is in your view that makes me so displeased with it; to the enrichment of us both.
But for now I want to try a different route, so lets try again if you are willing.
**Beliefs.
**
“The Individual is not his body, though his body constitutes (gives bodily substance, or shape to) the individual, and expresses him; he is not his body.”
“The Individual existentially survives the body, even if the body existentially ceases to exist as a whole object being dissolved into the material system by plants, bacterial, etc; turned into dust.”
“The Individual is ideally embodied, but embodiment is not necessary for his existence; because it is ideal he will be embodied again in a higher form.”
“The Individual has an identity which includes his transcendent spiritual nature, and his material vessel, expression, constitution. The identity of a person without his body is weakened and made less, but not wholly ceased to be as part of the identity at least rests in the transcendent spiritual nature which is rests in the Individual which survives the body.”
“The Individual is the Image of God; which is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. These are “symptoms” of being that Image, which is being the “tangible offspring” of God; a reflection of God’s essential and fundamental person in the form of an individual; an “I be” dependent on the “I AM” emanating from that same “I AM”, his source and sustainer.”
“The Individual is fully God-dependent, God-sustained, God-maintained, God-emanating, God-sourced; even the matter that constitutes the bodily portion of his identity, and expression is so; hence the whole Individuality, identity and all is God-dependent.” (matter is also God dependent, so if the body and the spirit are effectively God-dependent, then the Individual is in an ultimate way, solely God dependent)
Speculations I have, that border on belief.
“The Individual when he dies passes into the hands of God, not into permanent unconsciousness (de facto permanent until resurrection), or non-existence. As a subset; The Individual passes more fully into the hands of God, going into the hands of God, or more fully continuing into and embracing the hands of God.”
There are more, but that will have to wait. I believe these will suffice for now.
When Jesus said this, He was addressing the fact of the resurrection of the dead (a future event) not the present state of the dead. He was saying it for the benefit of the Sadducees who did not believe in a future resurrection of the dead:
And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:31,32
Jesus is the resurrection of the dead. Since he did not die prior to this statement in order to be raised from the dead, of course it referred to a future event. Though that event has already passed, therefore today it is a present state.
I see The Resurrection as both event and present-unfolding state. I believe that there must be far more to the Resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified. God always puts far more into things than what people see it being, and in a positive way he puts far more.
That Jesus is The Resurrection and The Life says to me that The Resurrection and The Life are far more than just events for the physical/material body. Far, far more, and not just in the typical churchy/spiritual idea of it being more while still trying to contain it to event. I mean more.
This book, or document might have some interesting tidbits in it. I am especially fond, or concerning myself with the opinions of the early church fathers and the expression of their belief in a soul that survives the body.
Well I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that some of my comments/questions will not see a response from you, but I guess I should just be thankful you still want to discuss this topic in spite of your feelings toward my view!
This we agree on. As human persons we are constituted by our bodies without being identical with our bodies - kind of like how the Statue of Liberty is constituted by copper and steel without being identical with the copper and steel that constitute it.
This we disagree on. I believe that when the mortal body by which a human individual is constituted dies, the human individual necessarily dies as well and is “existentially dead.” Otherwise, I don’t think it would be true that the human individual was constituted by their mortal body. They would’ve instead been constituted by something other than their mortal body (e.g., what you refer to as an “immortal soul”). Or if they were partly constituted by a mortal body and partly constituted by something else that is immortal, then it would be the latter part of them which would survive the death of the body. But neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture leads me to believe that there exists some immortal part of us that is conscious after death in a disembodied state, and I can’t believe in that which I have no good reason to believe exists.
I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I’m not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we’re immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we’d be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.
Neither my experience/observation nor my understanding of Scripture informs me that we have a “transcendent spiritual nature,” if by “transcendent spiritual nature” you mean some part of us that survives the death of the body to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. Our identity is not merely “weakened” when that by which we are constituted dies; rather, I believe that when that by which we are constituted dies, we die. If we don’t die when our body dies, then it means we weren’t constituted by it, or that we were only partly constituted by it. But I think God would have to reveal this to us, and I don’t think he has.
I’m confused by this. You say that being in the image of God is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. But rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God’s personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. That is, any being who is rational, moral and self-aware would necessarily bear God’s image by virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware. This is certainly consistent with what Scripture teaches regarding man’s being made in the image of God, because it is his personhood (i.e., his being rational, moral and self-aware) which separates him from the other “living souls” made by God which are not said to bear God’s image. I realize you want to include as part of our identity some sort of “transcendency” over space/matter/time, but for me that’s like someone saying man must also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal in every possible sense, and unable to lie in order to bear God’s image. And what’s more, you believe that even animals have transcendent “immortal souls,” so having an immortal soul cannot be that which distinguishes man from those creatures that do not bear God’s image.
And since you said previously that you didn’t think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love, then it must be possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an “immortal soul.” And if that’s the case, then man doesn’t require an “immortal soul” to do these things. Thinking rationally, being self-aware and having the capacity to love reflects that which is essential and fundamental to who God is, and if man can do these things without an “immortal soul,” then man can reflect God’s fundamental being without an “immortal soul.” So why does man require an “immortal soul?” Is it just so that he can be “transcendent” in the sense that you think he should be “transcendent?” But I would argue that, according to your view, even creatures which do not bear God’s image possess the same kind of “transcendency” that you think is so essential for man to possess.
Agreed!
I believe that when the individual dies he is dead until he is restored by God to life. His body begins to return to the dust from which it was made, and the “breath of life” or “spirit” (i.e., the animating force) “returns to God who gave it.” Since this wasn’t a conscious thing when God “gave it,” I see no reason to believe it is a conscious thing when it “returns to God.”
I agree that there is “more to the resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified.” Not only will all physical maladies be healed when the dead are raised imperishable and the living changed, but I believe all moral maladies will be healed as well. But this “change” will not be a gradual process; Paul says it will happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”
Well if when Christ said he was “the Resurrection” he was referring to what is to take place on the “last day” (John 6:39; 11:24) and at the “last trumpet,” then he was referring to an “event” - and not a present, ongoing event which is taking placing gradually over a period of time, but a future event that is to going to take place (for lack of a better word) instantaneously. Or if he was talking about the kind of “resurrection” spoken of in John 5:24 (when he speaks of those who have “passed from death to life”), then this “resurrection” refers to something that may be spoken of as having taken place in the past for the believer (i.e., when, by faith, one is “born again” or “born from above”). Or he may have in view both kinds of “resurrections” (i.e., that which is to take place on the “last day”/at the “last trumpet,” and that which takes place when one is “born again”) - but even then, we’re talking about two different “resurrection events,” both of which Christ is responsible for. Either way, Jesus’ title “the Resurrection” is highly appropriate. I’m inclined to understand Christ to be referring to the “last day” event when he refers to himself as “the Resurrection,” and to the believer’s spiritual “rebirth” (when one passes “from death to life” by faith) when he refers to himself as “the Life.”
Just kidding, of course (at least, about the “inspiring” part; some believers in UR might still find it helpful).
As for the “early church fathers” and their fondness for the idea that the “soul” refers to something that “survives the body,” it’s well known that most of these “church fathers” were highly influenced by Greek philosophy, which (whether intentionally or not) they blended with Christian theology.
For a book defending the opposite view (and which was written in the same century), I recommend the following by Miles Grant, who was an annihilationist (which, to be fair, is not much better than Lee’s position!):
I am likewise surprised you still want to discuss it with me, seeing my feelings towards your view. But none of my view is towards you, only your view; but for reasons which really are difficult to explain (not that they are unfounded, only that they are so deep that words aren’t very good at it).
I just felt it would be easier, and more Christlike, if I could put aside my contempt and try to meet you in a way that I could make more impact in the understanding. Try to speak your language I guess, rather than trying to enforce mine.
Yes. Very much so, and that is one thing in your post that I agreed with that made me consider taking it down so I could go this route. While I believe the human body, and even matter itself is important and beautiful for manifesting the invisible nature; I believe that nature continues or survives the body.
You might say, that Liberty lives on even if the statue of it is destroyed. This is my view of it, which I had wanted to allude to in my removed post.
This is where I believe that the “immortal soul” is constituted, or maintained rather; by the Immortal God. Without God sustaining everything, it would not survive. But that God sustains it, it does.
I do not think so much, atleast according to my understanding that the soul is immortal in and of itself, but that the imperishableness of it is by reason of God.
I believe this is not necessarily correct, because we exist in multiple dimensions; not just 3 or 4. I don’t think being immaterial necessitates material embodiment in order to be localised. Take for example; Angelic beings.
It is common belief, and was common belief then amongst both Jews, and Pagans. It is a human belief in general, just like belief in Deity.
I gave a link to a book that has more information that is relavent to this area; with both Biblical notions and Historic.
Only if you want to go to the full extreme. That man is has an evil nature, and does evil things, and often acts very irrational, immoral, and has too much self-awareness to the point of only caring for his own survival, reproduction, and passing on of genes I could go the other extreme and say that Man must not be made in the image of God at all; but is merely a very cunning animal.
I don’t think it is impossible. But I don’t believe God did it - because I believe he did something better.
Do you believe it is impossible for God to give man a transcendent Individuality that survives the body, and will be re-embodied again? That God cannot sustain a disembodied, or even temporarily housed, by his presence, in his presence, and to have enough love and comfort (or correction) to amply requite that Individual, and then give a body that even more so expresses God’s infinite and fathomless love?
Is it better to go directly into being in the presence of God (for bliss or for correct) than to wait centuries (even if they are unpercieved) and recieve immediately the gift of his presence, as well as the gift of the Resurrection? Rather than just having it all (for some) thousands of years later?
As for other creatures who do not bear his image; I do believe they posess some kind of transcendency. “I believe there are pets in Heaven”
I believe that the Individual who at least is in Life (Christ), stays in Life (Christ). For those who are not in Life, I do not know for certain. But I believe they have some form of existence that is beyond the body.
As for the spirit being conscious; God is Spirit, and he is conscious. The Holy Spirit is also conscious, as are angels, and spirits. Spirits are shown in an anthropomorphic light in various Bible passages.
2 Chronicles 18:18-21 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’
Luke 24:37-39 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
That spirits in general show consciousness, or anthropomorphic qualities is enough for me to believe that our spirits are also of that same sort, that we are by some significant means our spirits.
Even this is not what I mean by “more”.
I don’t think so, from context. When Lazarus’ sister said; “I know he will rise again on the last day” Jesus said, and angrily so (he was indignant throughout the account) “I am the Resurrection and the Life! Do you believe this?” And then he raised Lazarus then and there, not in a glorified body we can assume, but none the less raised him up proving his power over Death.
Jesus is the Resurrection, and the Life “Today” as well as “Tomorrow”. And he never changes.
I don’t believe the Resurrection and the Life is just a thing for the future, I don’t believe it can be because Jesus isn’t just for the future.
I don’t see problems with Greek Philosophy having influence, personally. The Greeks were already well on their way to believing in Monotheism by reason of the Philosophers; Plato for example was a monotheist if I recall correctly. I believe that God was working in the hearts of the Greeks well before the Christian era, as God is not just the God of the Jews, and the Jewish “mind and ideas” are not the corner market bearers on divine thought or truths, I believe God can inspire a heathen too, and did.
The Jews for the majority had also embraced this idea as well, and I don’t believe that just because the idea is “Greek” that it is negated of its value as being “true”. I do not see any instances myself where Christ stood up and said; “The Greeks are wrong!” in paraphrase, but commended certain Gentiles for their faith in fact. The idea of a soul apart form the body is not just Greek either, but spans most of Human-kind. From the Norse to the Babylonians, to the Egyptians to the far east. Even the Americas.
I personally don’t believe that the Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas, or that their ideas ultimately significantly mount over those of the early church Fathers, Greek or not who were Spirit filled themselves. But even the Jews had accepted this belief (apart from a heretical minority sect; the Sadducees) as truth, and Christ again I don’t see having said anything against this belief, in a direct sense. Christ’s silence on the matter, that would have been common thought, is telling to me that it isn’t a gross error. He derided many of the Pharisees actions, and beliefs; but not their beliefs regarding the afterlife. The Sadducees however who did not belief in an afterlife, the Resurrection, or spirits, or angels; he spoke against directly in this area.
The majority of the Jews, the Early Church fathers (and believers), and the majority of Humanity believed in a soul that passes on after physical death tells me that this is not just mere fancy.
I would like to question the concept of an immaterial “soul” or “spirit” (hereafter called simply “soul”) existing apart from our body in light of our human experience.
A 2y-old child is immature in its thinking. Is its soul immature also? Does the soul mature along with the body as the child grows?
If so, is the concept of a maturing soul consistent with the belief in the pre-existence of the SS?
When a person is struck hard on the head with a club, he may be rendered unconscious. A physical club having contact with a physical head. Did the soul become unconscious? How can doing something physical to a physical body affect an immaterial soul?
When a person is deeply troubled in his soul, stomach ulcers sometimes result. How can an activity of the immaterial soul affect the physical body?
As a person gets older, he sometimes develops a mental condition in which he does not know what he is doing, and does not recognized his loved ones, even his spouse? How can aging affect the immaterial soul? If his soul departs at death, will it retain its mental condition at the time of death? Or will God instantly restore it to an earlier state? And which earlier state? Age 5? 10? 20? 40? 60?
There seems to be so many inconsistencies with reality in holding to a concept of an immaterial soul, the real “you” which somehow lives in your body, conjoined to your body while it lives, and separated from it when you die.
If you believe in the Platonic concept of the soul/body distinction, please address some or all of the problems I have described above.
The same way events in the material world bothers the immaterial God, and the same way the immaterial God causes effects in the material world. (though of course, not on a God-sized scope, its just an example)
The soul is connected to the body and functions through it, but I do not believe that soul depends on the body to exist. I believe that soul will regain that mental condition; as it would be in God’s hands (at least for the Christian, most likely for the rest) and God heals. I believe God will restore it to its most efficient state of memory, capacity, and mental function.
These are mostly due to, I believe, science and medical knowledge having not yet advanced enough to see how such things function.
I see more inconsistency with the idea that I am just a body (even a rational, self-aware, moral one). That the soul is connected to the body and functions through it I do not believe necessitates that the soul be irreversibly dependent on it. The soul depends on God to exist, as much as the body. That God maintains both body and soul tells me that the body is not the life-giver to the soul.
Metaphorically, we require a womb in order to be born, but just because the umbilical cord is cut that doesn’t mean we stop existing or growing. Now I can’t take this metaphor to every length, but again its just an example.
Soulsleep causes all kinds of literal separations between a person and God, things that should never cause separation to begin with; things that Jesus came to remove, to disempower as separators. Death is one example, Time is another (nothing shall separate us from the love of God, neither life nor death, nor powers, nor principalities, etc, etc). That Death has not been removed as a concept or property (yet) in our physical material world of 4 dimensions, does not mean that it hasn’t been disarmed. And I don’t believe that I will experience any separation from him, not by Time, nor by Death, nor by Soulsleep. I don’t believe I will “existentially cease to exist”, just because my body goes back to the dust. I don’t see how I could be the image of God and not be a spirit who returns back to him.
).
Are you serious? I’ve tried to respond to almost everything you’ve presented me.
