Thanks for your comments on this Jason, and I will keep trying with Jeff Benner. 
Good verses to contemplate. ‘Life force’ seems to fit these verses.
Melchizedek, I lean towards your understanding of ‘spirit’. On Sunday, the ‘sermon’ was based on the account of Jairus’s daughter. After the service, my friend came up to me grinning and said ‘see, the little girl is described as ‘sleeping’, not aware still in a paradise place. Jesus gives her back her life’. I grinned back and said 'exactly, hence why is Jesus called the Resurrection and the LIfe? If we’re still ‘alive’ after we die, then what’s the point of it all? The little girl’s spirit left her and Jesus effectively put the spirit back into her to bring her back to life.
I will note that conceptually, the point of a physical resurrection even if the spirit is still alive and consciously functioning somewhere, is the same point as physical existence in the first place. 
God loves Nature, gives His life for it (or for Her), will bring Nature to perfection apart from sin, apparently will even resurrect the natural system somehow. A physical resurrection is a validation of that love of God for His creation.
In shorter: if it’s worth doing to begin with, it’s still worth doing when associated problems are overcome. (I could be more technical about the issues involved, but they’d still fit that general precept.)
I messaged ‘Rooster’s’ blog and he has kindly replied. He says regarding the ‘le’ in Gen 2:7:
‘‘In Genesis 2:7 the extra L’ you refer to indicates motion towards something, in accordance with God breathing a soul INTO the primal Adam. And he BECAME a “living soul” which indicates that his essence is not the physical animal body that simply “has life” but a higher spiritual existance.’’
To see his full reply to me, see:
blogger.com/comment.g?blogID … 1866438559
I’ve not managed to read any ‘ancient’ sources yet, but all the modern sources seem to agree that there was a mixture of beliefs and so it seems impossible to know for sure what the correct teaching is. I’m not so bothered now about which position is right, (although I favour the position that the bible teaches that the ‘dead know nothing’ and hence why we need to be resurrected at a future time). Even if the dead are still conscious, I don’t believe that God will torment people forever and so I have more peace about all this. I think I’m going to consign this subject to that of the trinity ie leave it in God’s hands. I’m not sure if God even exists, I’m not sure if He’s a trinity, I’m not sure if man has a separate imaterial ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’, and I’m not sure if God will save ALL humans who have ever existed. The list goes on and on and is very wearisome to my soul (whatever that is ). All I can cling to is that ‘all will be well’ and I hope we’re all included in the ‘all’…
I’m not sure if this has been pointed out already.The Earliest Creeds of the Christian Faith .
Several versions of post mortem evangelism position were popular in the early church and were advocated by such noteworthy theologians as Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and Ambrose. It is also significant to note that the idea of Christ descending into hell is found in the two earliest ecumenical creeds of the church, the Nicene and the Apostles Creed). ~Source : Across the Spectrum, Gregory Boyd .
I don’t know that I would disagree with that in principle; but the key exegetical point would be (and so far as I know the tradition the key point has always been) God breathing the nephesh of humanity, distinct from other nearby uses of the word. The important distinction isn’t the “to/toward” preposition, although naturally its useage there fits the special situation.
Similarly, the word for “become” isn’t the key point–the other souls didn’t exist pre-etenally as living souls, they must have become living souls, too. But not (apparently) by God breathing their nephesh into them. (I say ‘apparently’ because I don’t recall for sure that the scriptures only talk about the breath from God in relation to humanity later. If not, then the breath wasn’t the special distinction per se either; but if so then it’s the breath, not the “into” or even the “becoming” that specially counts.)
What any of that has to do with whether all souls only sleep before resurrection or not, I have no idea. God specially created human souls (and even animal souls, whatever their other distinctions are) in the first place, so if God wants them to be conscious post-mortem but pre-resurrection, then they will be; and if not, then not; or if in some mixture, then that’s how it will be.
Weny, thanks for your input. I’ll check that out.
Jason, what you say makes sense. 
Evidence of belief in post mortem salvation in the early church also comes in the incredibly moving account of the martyrdom of St Perpetua (martyred in 203). While in prison awaiting martyrdom Perpetua had a vision of her little brother Dinocrates, who had died unbaptized from facial cancer at the early age of seven. She prayed for him and later had a vision of him drinking from a baptismal font and then restored - happy and healthy, his facial disfigurement reduced to a scar.
Perpetua’s reputation as a martyr posed difficulties for St Augustine in the fifth century. Augustine – who taught that the unbaptised are all damned – had to reject the authority for her vision. He also found her suspect because she was a young mother at the time of her martyrdom – Augustine was only comfortable with the idea of virgin martyrs (because of his dualistic abhorrence of the sexual act). One of the most moving parts of Perpetua’s account – taken down by a scribe in the prison as she spoke though the bars – is her distress and concern over her own infant child missing his mother’s comfort and milk, which only abates when she feels reassured that Christ will look after the child.
Anyway Perpetua obviously believed in the possibility of post mortem salvation/healing for her non-Christian, dead little brother.
Blessings
Dick
And that’s slightly off topic regarding the actual discussion here (apologies 
)
But very interesting.
You didn’t by any chance watch ‘Andrew Marr’s History of the World last Sunday?’ It featured Perpetua and I was crying watching it. I had never heard of her, and didn’t know about her brother. I suppose you could argue, that the boy was too young to be held accountable and therefore too young to be baptised (I’m assuming infant christening is not right) and so God was showing her, that her brother would be ok. This doesn’t therefore prove that everyone who hasn’t put their faith in Christ will be ok too. I wish the brother had been thirty. That would really have supported the idea that you can be saved,even after you die.
[Ad/mod edit: deleted an accidental double-post.]
Hi Catherine 
–
I didn’t see Andrew Marr’s programme – but hope to see the repeat. It is an extraordinarily moving story and I’m glad it was aired on a popular history programme.
The thing about the post mortem salvation/healing of Perpeptua’s brother is that, according to Augustine’s doctrine of ECT –and Augustine was the architect of EC T in its ‘hard’ form and the major influence on the Protestant ECT of Calvin and Luther – anyone who died ‘unsaved’ goes to hell. And for Augustine this meant anyone dying without the saving grace of water baptism rather that the saving grace of accepting Christ as saviour which meant that babies who died unbaptised, and indeed new Christians who died during the period of instruction before baptism were destined for eternal damnation (although I understand he did waver about this sometimes). SO Perpetua’s vision of the post mortem salvation of her brother differed from official Church teaching two centuries later and does seem t be an example of a more flexible and merciful strand of expectation in the earlier church.
I obviously don’t know what Andrew Marr had to say about Perpetua – but I do know that she is of special interest to Christian feminists. It seems that her ‘vision diary’ narrative is the only real intimate glimpse we get into the mid of a woman in the patriarchal classical world – so she s enormously important to feminist historians. Her dictated account shows her real tenderness for her brother, for her baby, and for her fellow martyrs (and tenderness is a quality often lacking in the male church fathers). But as well as tender hearted she was also incredibly, incredibly brave. She was obviously only in her early twenties – but it was her who kept the other martyrs from her household in good heart during their hour of trial – including her household’s Christian priest who was hysterical with terror at the prospect of being gored by a wild boar. So her story gives the lie to all of the gender stereotyping of Christian patriarchy goons by showing a woman giving real leadership in the early Church.
Her visions are incredible. The one of her brother’s healing in the next world that creatively combines the baptismal font and the chalice of sacrament is haunting. Also – and I’m sure Andrew Marr probably mentioned this – her vision of herself as turned into a man and being greased up for gladiatorial combat against a giant Ethiopian gladiator – representing both Satan and Roman cruelty – is very striking (of course she defeats the giant with Christ’s help and is crowned victor).
I know that on the day of her martyrdom, she and her servant girl St Felicity entered the arena together naked. Perhaps they chose to do this to shame the crowd (as a protest against the barbarity of the games and of Roman power). Felicity had just had a baby herself and was lactating - and this did indeed shame the crowd; both martyrs had to be clothed for their ordeal at the crowds demand.
The last astonishing detail I know of is that when Perpetua was tethered to a stake and the beast made its first onslaught, her hair fell down freely over her shoulders. She defiantly secured her it again with a pin – because for a Roman matron wearing your hair down was a sign of mourning, not appropriate for Perpetua on her day of triumph.
I think we can say ‘peace brave soul – you will rise in glory’.
Blessings
Dick
One last thought about her Perpetua –I guess we have to focus on her tender courage – gentle but fierce - rather than the grimness of her ordeal long since passed. Some of the martyrs in the early church were just enthusiastic to get killed so that they could earn a crown in paradise – the church was aware of this tendency and tried to discourage these ‘pseudo-martyrs’. But in the case of Perpetua I think we can be assured that she was a martyr to love – rather than a martyr to the death wish. She obviously loved life, and loved people and acted out of a higher love to heal the broken loves in her life.
I’ve read Peter Brown’s book on perceptions of the Body in the ancient church and he makes the point that as well as earning the victor’s crown as blood witnesses, these early martyrs were also actually engaged in political protest – they wanted to stop the cruelty of Roman State religion and protested with the only thing available to them – their bodies.
I know that the gladiatorial games continued when Rome eventually became ‘Christian’ at least in name. When I was a boy I read the story of a Christian hermit who leapt into the arena in ‘Christian’ Rome, placing himself between tow gladiators, and was killed. And finally Christian Rome was shamed into abolishing what was left of the ‘funeral’ games, which had sanctified to Roman power. I’ve never seen this story again, nor do I know the name of the hermit. If anyone reading this knows his name – please drop me a line.
Hi Dick
You can watch the episode with Perpetua on BBC IPlayer. I’ve just checked and it’s episode 3 ‘The Word and the Sword’ and if you don’t want to watch the whole hour, just forward to 26 minutes and it starts with Saul and the stoning of Stephen, and then goes on to Perpetua.
I think the account of Perpetua serves to demonstrate just how wrong Augustine was about certain doctrinal matters. He was way off the mark and infected the truth with his poison. I’ve just finished Derek Flood’s book ‘Healing the gospel’ and when I watched Perpetua last week, I was struck by her ‘enemy love’ that Derek talks about (indeed a martyr to love), and it helped me to understand what Derek was trying to explain in his book. Due to people like Augustine, there’s a lot about the ‘gospel’ that isn’t good and needs healing.
I haven’t heard about the Christian hermit, so I hope someone on here has. Thanks again Dick.
Catherine.
Just an observation from me. Death is often called sleep in scripture. But sleep is not total unconsciousness. Nor is even a coma come to think of it. We are unconsciousness in a sense when we sleep. And then we rise again every morning refreshed, perhaps a beautiful parallel every day that one day out of ‘true sleep’, of which our nightly sleep is just a shadow, we will rise from the dead refreshed. Even in sleep though we dream, we move, some even walk. Some say that the process of resting and dreaming cleanses the body and the mind. It makes me wonder if death is called sleep because it is, in the spirit world, a similar process. That our spirit isn’t conscious, much like when we sleep, but that there is still something ‘going on’ with our spirits, like when we dream. That our death-sleep is a time that the spirit interacts in some way with God, in a parallel to our dreams, but is still needing to be united to a resurrected body in order to be a living soul that praises God. It would make sense to me too, why necromancy was forbidden. It was possible to call a dead ‘sleep walker’ up from their rest, but you are not supposed to. The spirit is to be resting and refreshing with God, awaiting the day of resurrection.
This is just me throwing thoughts out there. I have no formed opinion on this topic. But it seems to me there is more going on here than we realise.
I have heard this explanation before and it does seem to make sense. I still favour the idea that our thoughts cease when we die (Psalm 146:4). I see the ‘spirit’ in us, as our life force that goes back to God. I’ve had a couple of general anaesthetics and you really don’t know anything whilst ‘under’. (well I didn’t). It felt like only a second had passed but a couple of hours had passed during my operation. I see death like that: someone dead six thousand years will think only a second has passed when they are ‘awakened’ at the ‘last trump’ (or later after the thousand years.) Then again, maybe Jesus was demonstrating that people are conscious after they die, when he told the parable of the Richman and Lazarus? 
Catherine –
Thanks for the info about the Andrew Marr documentary Catherine I know that the main part of this conversation is about soul sleep - but as for the testimony of the Early Church about universalism – I think you are right that Perpetua showed love for enemies. It is my hunch that ECT doctrine was originally intensified by the experience of persecution by the Early Church. Tertullian – Perpetua’s near contemporary, appalled by the brutality of the funeral games came up with the horrible idea that in heaven Christians would be able to get a ringside seat for the eternal torture of the damned and would laugh the damned to scorn in their torment. Augustine seems t have drawn no his tradition, modifying it for the church as triumphant rather than the church as persecuted.
Origen was the son of a martyr. When persecution flared up in Alexandria between 206 and 210 Origen, in his early twenties and already a teacher of great authority stayed, when the rest of the clergy vanished and as Peter Brown says – ‘Daring the hostile crowd – no small act of courage in a city notorious for its lynch law – the young teacher would step forward to bestow on his spiritual ‘children’ the solemn kiss that declared they had become worthy of a martyr’s death’. But as we know Origen believed in universal salvation; his soul at least was not corrupted by enemy hate.
My hunch is also that strong ECT went hand in hand with an increasing tendency to devalue women and maternal tenderness in the latter period of the Early Church. Again, Tertullian insisted that women should be fully veiled in Church because of their corrupting role in the ‘sin of the marriage bed’. When a group of young Christina women, committed to virginity, stood in a Carthage Church unveiled (with the approval of the congregation), they were the butt of the fullness of his bile and were forced to veil themselves again as a matter of Church discipline.
Hi Catherine -
Just a quick note to say that I’ve now watched Andrew Marr’s episode 3 and really enjoyed it - especially the dramatisation of Perpetua’s story. Isn’t it funny how we both had Perpetua on our minds for different reasons (I’ve recently read an article about her).
Well I was right about Andrew Marr’s choice from her vision diary: lol: - I know he’s got a strong sense of drama. I note that stories always have to be simplified for the purpose of television - for example the documentary did not mention that Perpetua and her fellow martyr’s endured trial by beasts before being put to the sword (I guess some of the details were too unpleasant to act out in a documentary); and I also know that the consensus seems to be that Perpetua probably shouted out her visions and feelings to a scribe rather than writing them down herself (but perhaps we will never know).
But there we go - one of her visions that prepared her and her fellow martyrs for death (she probably shouted the visions out to them in the noisy prison to give them courage) was a vision of post mortem salvation/healing of a much loved brother. And that’s of special interest to us I guess
Then again, many people experience a form of consciousness under anaesthetic. And on the flip side, many either have no or do not remember their dreams.
I have an agnostic approach to what happens immediately after death. I do not believe we are alive and human without a body. So I don’t believe in a spirit immortality. But I do believe our spirit goes back to God, whatever that means, till the resurrection. And the endor medium story, stories of Paul being caught up out of the body etc, lead me to believe that a spirit is more than just life force. Whatever it is, it seems that at death it is with God, that it is possible to be called up as a ghost but is forbidden by God. Seems the soul is supposed to be resting in God.
I would however caution from taking psalms, which are afterall poetry, as a concrete description of death.
Hey Dick, glad you enjoyed it. It is a happy coincidence we both had Perpetua on our minds. Thanks for all the extra info. When I’ve got time, I’ll check her out more thoroughly. She is certainly an encouragement to us, even all these centuries.