 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/15/2004 5:44 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/16/2004 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock,
This is from the first link you provided:
quote:
ALL THE OCCURRENCES OF psuche, SOUL, IN THE GREEK SCRIPTURES
The result of imparting breath to the human, Gen.2:7; in the blood, Lev.17:14; limited to moving creatures, Gen.1:20; distinguished from life, Gen.2:7; from spirit and body, 1 Thess.5:23—a sentient being. Figuratively, the person as viewed from the standpoint of his sensations or experiences, Rev.6:9.
The author of that article recognizes a spirit. Hill, on the other hand, seems to allow for no non-material person. If he DOES allow for a non-material person, and I'm misreading him, then I see no problem. But to me, the fundamental philosophical question is:
How can a person cease to exist and then come back into existence. This seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Nor do I see the scriptures saying that. Do you?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/16/2004 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff-
This is what I see in the scriptures about death.
First, both the new and old testaments describe death as an unconscious state equivalent to deep sleep. When we are in a deep sleep, we are not conscious of the time passing or what is taking place while we sleep. Here are some old testament scriptures concerning the death state;
Psa 6:4 Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: Oh save me for thy mercies sake.
Psa 6:5 For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who will give thee thanks?
Psa 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Isa 38:17 Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul [delivered it] from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.
Isa 38:18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
Ecc 9:10 Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Gen. 2:7 tells us that God formed man from the dust of the earth and then breathed into him the breath of life, then man became a living soul. The combination of the formed dust (flesh) and the spirit God breathed into it, produced a living soul; Adam. When a man dies his body returns to the dust from where it came and the spirit returns to God, from where it came (Eccl. 12:7). In eccense death is not a departing, it is a returning; in that the dust returns to the earth and the spirit returns to God. Now, Moses refers to God as the "God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 16:22, 27:16). Each living thing has this individual spirit, or breath of life, from God.
My existence is the combination of my spirit (or the breath of life from God) and my flesh which God gave me at conception. When I die, my spirit will return to God and my body will return to the earth (the dust). Concerning resurrection we now go to 1 Cor. 15;
35 But someone will be protesting, "How are the dead being roused? Now with what body are they coming?"
36 Imprudent one! What you are sowing is not being vivified if it should not be dying.
37 And, what you are sowing, you are not sowing the body which shall come to be, but a naked kernel, perchance of wheat or some of the rest.
38 Yet God is giving it a body according as He wills, and to each of the seeds its own body.
Upon resurrection God will combine my spirit (breath of life) with a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44). This spiritual body will be immortal, uncorruptable, glorified, powerful, etc. (1 Cor 15:43). As verse 46 tells, the "soul"ish body comes first, then the spiritual body.
In answer to your question, if existence implies consciousness, then yes, I believe that upon death one's existence ceases to be, then upon resurrection, our existence continues, but in a new, spiritual body. In the state of death, we will not be aware of the time passing, we will not have thoughts, nor will we be able to percieve anything.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/16/2004 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Lock,
quote:
In answer to your question, if existence implies consciousness, then yes, I believe that upon death one's existence ceases to be, then upon resurrection, our existence continues, but in a new, spiritual body. In the state of death, we will not be aware of the time passing, we will not have thoughts, nor will we be able to percieve anything.
I don't see why existence would imply consciousness. I've been drugged for an internal medical examiniation before. It seemed like death to me, for I seemed to have been COMPLETELY unconscious - no dreams no nothing. But I still existed didn't I?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/16/2004 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Lock,
quote:
In answer to your question, if existence implies consciousness, then yes, I believe that upon death one's existence ceases to be, then upon resurrection, our existence continues, but in a new, spiritual body. In the state of death, we will not be aware of the time passing, we will not have thoughts, nor will we be able to percieve anything.
I don't see why existence would imply consciousness. I've been drugged for an internal medical examiniation before. It seemed like death to me, for I seemed to have been COMPLETELY unconscious - no dreams no nothing. But I still existed didn't I?
Yes, the breath of life (spirit) God gave you was still combined with your body. When I stated that death is equated with sleep I am using sleep as a descriptive metaphor. We all know that we can sleep, be knocked out, or even in an altered state of mind without actually being dead.
Each person created is unique. The spirit (breath of life) from God that combines with our flesh must also be unique. When we die and our fleshy body returns to the dust, yet our unique spirit (breath of life) returns to God. As long as our spirit (breath of life) is seperated from a body we do not have consciousness and are unable to percieve anything. When God then gives us a spiritual body upon resurrection, we retain our consciousness un-influenced by the corruptable flesh.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/18/2004 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott J. recommended to me the book IN GOD'S TIME by Craig Hill. I bought it and started reading it this week...Questions:
1) What scriptures, OT or NT, suggest that there is no soul that exists independent of the body?
2) What extra-scriptural writings of ancient Judaism or early Christianity suggest that there is no soul that exists independent of the body?
3) How can you come back into existence after going out of existence? Wouldn't the "new" existing person just be a separate clone of the original person?
Just focusing on the scriptural issue, the Pauline epistles all seem to consistently suggest the "monist" view of the human constitution. That is, Paul consistently writes about death being similar to sleep - that is, a period of "non-existence" as far as one's self-awareness is concerned - followed by resurrection. This suggests monism because of the implication that the self does not exist in any kind of conscious state between death and the new body. For example, see passages where Paul consistently refers to the dead as those "fallen asleep" and to their awakening as a transformation in conjunction with a new resurrection body (eg throughout 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4). See even narrated accounts of Paul's preaching, in Acts (Acts 13:36).
Jesus, on the other hand, speaks both of resurrection from sleep-like death, and conscious existence beyond death. For the former, see the raisings of Lazarus (John 11:11-13) and the little girl (a story contained in each of the synoptic gospels: Matthew 9:24, Mark 5:39, Luke 8:52). Also see the parable of the sheep and the goats. For the latter, see Matthew 10:28 (re the soul), the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and Jesus' promise to the repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:43).
Other NT writings likewise alternately speak of resurrection from a sleep-like state, and the soul. Revelation 20:4 even speaks of both within the space of a single verse ("I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus...They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.")!
In the OT, for the most part we find death referred to as Sheol or "the grave", with no resurrection, and either a complete and final cessation of existence, or the continuation of the disembodied soul although in a sleeplike, shadowy, incomplete and even unhappy state. See Psalm 6:5 as one of many, many examples. (This is likely where the Saduccees were coming from; far from being entirely "liberal" they actually seem to have been quite "conservative" theologically, at least in that regard.) Yes, Genesis 2:5 contains the reference to God's in-breathing of the "breath of life", but this seems to refer to the thing which makes men living images of God, without necessarily referring specifically to the soul. Genesis 3:19 goes on, after all, to state simply that men will return to dust upon death. Daniel 12:2 contains the first clear reference to the idea of resurrection from sleeplike death in the OT - which is late indeed (especially if you accept the scholarly late-date given to Daniel's final canonical form).
Which view does the Bible teach, then? It's not that simple. In short, it seems clear to me that there is an emerging witness regarding the afterlife as the Bible progresses, ie as Jewish and Christian thought reflected on God's continuing revelation over time. From the dusty grave, through the soul in Sheol, to resurrection from sleep, this witness is not consistent. It appears that resurrection from a sleeplike death is the culmination of this idea; so if I were to consider one view as dominant for Christianity, that would be it - which in turn would seem to imply a monist view of the human constitution (something that would seem to have support from modern science as well). But I would not go so far as to say that is a consistent biblical teaching, for there is no consistent biblical teaching on the nature of the afterlife. My view is that the biblical witness is just an attempt in human words to portray the truth that we will, in some manner, persist beyond death, that death is not the end; like most artwork, it doesn't matter if everything in the sketch does not line-up critically.
Nancey Murphey at Fuller Seminary has evidently made quite a name for herself in considering this issue. You might want to look for some of her writings.
Hope this helps,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/19/2004 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
Just focusing on the scriptural issue, the Pauline epistles all seem to consistently suggest the "monist" view of the human constitution. That is, Paul consistently writes about death being similar to sleep - that is, a period of "non-existence" as far as one's self-awareness is concerned - followed by resurrection. This suggests monism because of the implication that the self does not exist in any kind of conscious state between death and the new body. For example, see passages where Paul consistently refers to the dead as those "fallen asleep" and to their awakening as a transformation in conjunction with a new resurrection body (eg throughout 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4). See even narrated accounts of Paul's preaching, in Acts (Acts 13:36).
I don't see how being unconscious equals non-existant. I've been pretty unconscious before from an explatory medical examination, but I don't see how that has any bearing on whether I'm merely a physical body or not.
quote:
Jesus, on the other hand, speaks both of resurrection from sleep-like death, and conscious existence beyond death. For the former, see the raisings of Lazarus (John 11:11-13) and the little girl (a story contained in each of the synoptic gospels: Matthew 9:24, Mark 5:39, Luke 8:52). Also see the parable of the sheep and the goats. For the latter, see Matthew 10:28 (re the soul), the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and Jesus' promise to the repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:43).
I don't see why they have to be viewed as contradictory. The passage in the OT about Samuel being conjured says he was disturbed, seemingly from some state of rest - maybe even unconsciousness. Thus, the normal state of death may be unconsciousness, with exceptions as God makes for His own purposes.
quote:
In the OT, for the most part we find death referred to as Sheol or "the grave", with no resurrection, and either a complete and final cessation of existence, or the continuation of the disembodied soul although in a sleeplike, shadowy, incomplete and even unhappy state. See Psalm 6:5 as one of many, many examples.
5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?
I have no problem with unconsciousness in death - I don't see how it proves non-existence.
quote:
(This is likely where the Saduccees were coming from; far from being entirely "liberal" they actually seem to have been quite "conservative" theologically, at least in that regard.)
Christ said (assuming the gospels are accurate) that the Saducees were wrong about the ressurection for they knew not the scriptures. There are verses in the OT about the ressurection and others that imply it.
quote:
Yes, Genesis 2:5 contains the reference to God's in-breathing of the "breath of life", but this seems to refer to the thing which makes men living images of God, without necessarily referring specifically to the soul.
I don't see them as connected. I suspect the breath of life refers literally to breath, as in breathing.
quote:
Genesis 3:19 goes on, after all, to state simply that men will return to dust upon death.
But Ecclesiastes says the body returns to dust and the spirit to God who gave it. Why limit ourselves to selected verses?
quote:
Daniel 12:2 contains the first clear reference to the idea of resurrection from sleeplike death in the OT - which is late indeed (especially if you accept the scholarly late-date given to Daniel's final canonical form).
I'm pretty sure there's one in Job, and the whole bit about Abraham inheriting the land only makes sense if there is a ressurection. Hebrews even says that Abraham's faith that Isaac was the chosen seed was manifested by the fact that Abraham was willing to kill him, knowing that God would raise him from the dead. Too, why would Joseph worry about his bones being carried to the land? Those guys were eschatological folks.
quote:
Which view does the Bible teach, then? It's not that simple. In short, it seems clear to me that there is an emerging witness regarding the afterlife as the Bible progresses, ie as Jewish and Christian thought reflected on God's continuing revelation over time. From the dusty grave, through the soul in Sheol, to resurrection from sleep, this witness is not consistent.
Which verses in the OT are contradictory as opposed to just giving one or more pieces of the picture?
quote:
It appears that resurrection from a sleeplike death is the culmination of this idea; so if I were to consider one view as dominant for Christianity, that would be it - which in turn would seem to imply a monist view of the human constitution (something that would seem to have support from modern science as well).
"Thou shall not leave my soul in hades." The angels carried Lazarus' soul to hades, and so forth. What about those verses? Don't they count? A monist view, which would be a materialist view, would seem to imply, philosophically, that when we die we are gone forever - any ressurection would be a new creature. Science believes the materialist view, that's why they're monists.
quote:
But I would not go so far as to say that is a consistent biblical teaching, for there is no consistent biblical teaching on the nature of the afterlife. My view is that the biblical witness is just an attempt in human words to portray the truth that we will, in some manner, persist beyond death, that death is not the end; like most artwork, it doesn't matter if everything in the sketch does not line-up critically.
That would depend on whether Christ actually told the Saducees they erred for not knowing the scriptures.
quote:
Nancey Murphey at Fuller Seminary has evidently made quite a name for herself in considering this issue. You might want to look for some of her writings.
I'll see if I can find some free stuff via google, first! 
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Jumping in, after only reading the initial post. (Sorry.)
1. Keep the "psycho/soma" unity as Biblical.
2. But don't take the negative about "No soul exists independent of a body, so when the body dies, the person dies."
3. Biblically, humans don't "have" immortality. If we did the cross would have been unnecessary. The Nicene Creed declares "I look for the resurrection of the dead." I could find you a nice article on the web by George Florevsky about that contrast. (Try Google.) But the point is that all creatures are sustained by their creator. We can IN CHRIST "have" eternal life "in Him." But it is never "ours."
I think Christians understand this. It is only the words that confuse, and we feel like we have to flee atheism by "beliving in immortality.
Believe on Christ's death and resurrection, and ours in Him!
Sorry to just drop in.
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2004 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Thanks, Ross. I may check it out when I get time. For now, I can't get past the fact that cessation of existence is permanent. It violates something profoundly intuitive in my brain to believe a being can go out of existence and then come back into existence. In fact, I have trouble getting a handle on the idea of something going completely out of existence in the first place.
Does it take God out of the picture? Maybe that's what's bugging you about it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/19/2004 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I don't see how being unconscious equals non-existant...the normal state of death may be unconsciousness, with exceptions as God makes for His own purposes...I have no problem with unconsciousness in death - I don't see how it proves non-existence.
I don't either, but I don't see that it rules it out. Phenomenologically, to a conscious being such as ourselves, who experiences existence as consciousness, the state of unconsciousness is indistinguishable from the state of non-existence (thus Descartes' "I think therefore I am"). So in using the metaphor of sleep, perhaps scripture is referring to an existent unconscious state, or perhaps it is referring to non-existence. What seems fairly clear to me in those passages, though, is the idea that the self does not exist in anywhere near a complete form without the body - whether during death the self is merely unconscious or non-existent, it is the resurrection of the transformed body that at least makes it whole.
quote:
Christ said (assuming the gospels are accurate) that the Saducees were wrong about the ressurection for they knew not the scriptures...
Yes, interesting point. Jesus saw the resurrection as being foreshadowed obliquely in Exodus 3:6, so in that sense saw it as 'taught' there. But his appeal to such an oblique reference as Exodus 3:6 reveals how scarce direct, clear references to 'resurrection', 'reawakening from the grave', 'returning from the grave' and so forth are in the OT, especially the older writings like the Pentateuch and the Psalms. This leads to your next point, namely, could these oblique references - meaning ones not directly consistent with resurrection - be harmonizable with resurrection if we are permitted to theologize a bit:
quote:
Which verses in the OT are contradictory as opposed to just giving one or more pieces of the picture?
Well, I didn't say they were necessarily contradictory; I said they were inconsistent. If the author of Psalm 6 had wanted to communicate that there is a soul separated from the body at death and re-united with a resurrection body at the end of days, he could have done a better job at it, in my opinion. Perhaps instead he didn't mean to teach that.
This is the problem that can exist with harmonization in biblical interpretation: the pressure, stemming from apriori suppositions about biblical inerrancy and verbal inspiration, to assume that every verse always cross-checks with the others consistently, no matter separate authors at separate times with separate emphases. Some of the techniques inerrantists use to harmonize inconsistent passages in scripture are so powerful as to be capable of harmonizing almost any conceivable discrepancy, and therefore prove nothing. Others of the techniques inerrantists use to harmonize inconsistent passages result in harmonizations nowhere affirmed in any one passage. And so on (into a standard critique of the inerrancy paradigm).
I'm not saying that these pressures are dominantly at work here, but this caution is in the back of my mind and it makes me reluctant to stretch too far in an attempt to harmonize Sheol with heaven or the resurrection. I find it more natural to say simply that the Hebrew idea of the afterlife germinated and progressed toward its fullest approximation of the truth over time, starting with death as the final end in the earliest-dated passages (eg Genesis 3), proceeding through Sheol and the shadowy existence of the soul, and culminating in the most fully-revealed idea of resurrection in late OT and NT times.
But, all that said, that Jesus saw some reason to find resurrection obliquely taught in even the earlier OT references gives me pause and is something for me to ponder.
quote:
A monist view, which would be a materialist view, would seem to imply, philosophically, that when we die we are gone forever - any ressurection would be a new creature. Science believes the materialist view, that's why they're monists.
Science endorses the monist view only because the methodology by which science operates is capable of detecting the soul only to the extent that it unambiguously expresses itself in observable fashion. And it doesn't. Nothing we traditionally associate with the "soul", such as mind, is scientifically detectable apart from a tight association with matter and chemistry.
As for whether resurrection from non-existence would constitute new creation - I suppose it might, or I suppose it might not. Either way would be defensible biblically - consider scriptural reference to the new creation as in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1. I don't understand your concern.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/20/2004 2:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
I don't see how being unconscious equals non-existant...the normal state of death may be unconsciousness, with exceptions as God makes for His own purposes...I have no problem with unconsciousness in death - I don't see how it proves non-existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't either, but I don't see that it rules it out. Phenomenologically, to a conscious being such as ourselves, who experiences existence as consciousness, the state of unconsciousness is indistinguishable from the state of non-existence (thus Descartes' "I think therefore I am"). So in using the metaphor of sleep, perhaps scripture is referring to an existent unconscious state, or perhaps it is referring to non-existence. What seems fairly clear to me in those passages, though, is the idea that the self does not exist in anywhere near a complete form without the body - whether during death the self is merely unconscious or non-existent, it is the resurrection of the transformed body that at least makes it whole.
It is true that being unconscious is like being non-existent. But that was my point about my medical examination. It was JUST LIKE being dead from my point of view. I've heard other people say the same thing about being drugged for operations. It is a more complete unconsciousness than a dreamy sleep. But we are only nonexistent in that state IF there is no non-material self.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ said (assuming the gospels are accurate) that the Saducees were wrong about the ressurection for they knew not the scriptures...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, interesting point. Jesus saw the resurrection as being foreshadowed obliquely in Exodus 3:6, so in that sense saw it as 'taught' there. But his appeal to such an oblique reference as Exodus 3:6 reveals how scarce direct, clear references to 'resurrection', 'reawakening from the grave', 'returning from the grave' and so forth are in the OT, especially the older writings like the Pentateuch and the Psalms. This leads to your next point, namely, could these oblique references - meaning ones not directly consistent with resurrection - be harmonizable with resurrection if we are permitted to theologize a bit:
I think the verses about Abraham and Joseph are pretty clear if you assume God doesn't lie when he swears by Himself. The one in Job is not particularly oblique either. Jesus' argument against the Saducees seems to be the argument of Paul - without a ressurection, God is merely the God of the dead, meaning a God that provides no hope. Apparently, Christ thought the whole tenor of scripture, taken together with the oblique and non-oblique verses about ressurection, is such that a hope/ressurection is clear enough. Even clear enough for Pharisees and many of the average Israelites to be sure Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would one day inherit the land in ressurection.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which verses in the OT are contradictory as opposed to just giving one or more pieces of the picture?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I didn't say they were necessarily contradictory; I said they were inconsistent. If the author of Psalm 6 had wanted to communicate that there is a soul separated from the body at death and re-united with a resurrection body at the end of days, he could have done a better job at it, in my opinion. Perhaps instead he didn't mean to teach that.
This is the problem that can exist with harmonization in biblical interpretation: the pressure, stemming from apriori suppositions about biblical inerrancy and verbal inspiration, to assume that every verse always cross-checks with the others consistently, no matter separate authors at separate times with separate emphases. Some of the techniques inerrantists use to harmonize inconsistent passages in scripture are so powerful as to be capable of harmonizing almost any conceivable discrepancy, and therefore prove nothing. Others of the techniques inerrantists use to harmonize inconsistent passages result in harmonizations nowhere affirmed in any one passage. And so on (into a standard critique of the inerrancy paradigm).
I haven't read much on harmonizations. Do you know of a good book on it? I have seen some strained examples of harmonizations like you're talking about on the internet. But your statement about Psalm 6, "Perhaps instead he didn't mean to teach that," doesn't seem to be strained. It is simply an acknowledgement that every comment about death need not be a dissertation on an after-life or other themes. So I don't see a problem here.
quote:
I'm not saying that these pressures are dominantly at work here, but this caution is in the back of my mind and it makes me reluctant to stretch too far in an attempt to harmonize Sheol with heaven or the resurrection.
I can't imagine how Sheol would have to mean heaven or ressurection just to find something about "heaven" or "ressurection" in the bible. I don't know of any main-stream theologians who equate Sheol with heaven or ressurection, either. Do you?
quote:
I find it more natural to say simply that the Hebrew idea of the afterlife germinated and progressed toward its fullest approximation of the truth over time, starting with death as the final end in the earliest-dated passages (eg Genesis 3), proceeding through Sheol and the shadowy existence of the soul, and culminating in the most fully-revealed idea of resurrection in late OT and NT times.
I don't think there's anything in the NT that advances on the idea of a sleep or shadowy existence of the soul in sheol/hades. To me the NT and OT both talk of a sleep of death with exceptional cases like Moses and Elijah talking to Christ on the mount of transfiguration. The ressurection seems to be THE hope in both testaments.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A monist view, which would be a materialist view, would seem to imply, philosophically, that when we die we are gone forever - any ressurection would be a new creature. Science believes the materialist view, that's why they're monists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science endorses the monist view only because the methodology by which science operates is capable of detecting the soul only to the extent that it unambiguously expresses itself in observable fashion. And it doesn't. Nothing we traditionally associate with the "soul", such as mind, is scientifically detectable apart from a tight association with matter and chemistry.
The methodology of science IS materialistic. That's what I was saying. So "observable," to scientists means observable via the senses. But consciousness is a kind of observation, though it is not one of the senses - indeed, the senses pre-suppose consciousness. For example, I'm conscious of what I'm thinking, imagining, dreaming, etc. without ever using my senses. So I know of mental activity all the time apart from any "tight association with matter and chemistry" or the senses.
quote:
As for whether resurrection from non-existence would constitute new creation - I suppose it might, or I suppose it might not. Either way would be defensible biblically - consider scriptural reference to the new creation as in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1. I don't understand your concern.
My concern is not predominantly biblical - it is epistemological. But I don't understand what point you're making with the verses about a new creation?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/20/2004 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
I've been posting here a lot lately and need to start trimming back. My apologies in advance if, after this, I'm not able to respond in this thread again. As it is, even in this response I'll cut it down to just where I think you directly asked me for input.
But overall, I do agree with you that, as you put it, the overall tenor of scripture is one of general hope that death is not the end, and the culmination of scripture is in the specific hope of some form of embodied, resurrected life (not just disembodied wispy soul) at the eschaton. I just freely admit that I cannot harmonize each and every passage with this conclusion, and I explain that inability by appealing to my understanding of scripture as partly human approximation rather than wholly divine inerrant perfection.
Now to where you asked for my input:
quote:
I haven't read much on harmonizations. Do you know of a good book on it? I have seen some strained examples of harmonizations like you're talking about on the internet.
Well, you said you're reading In God's Time, so check out (I think its) chapter 1, "I Was a Teenage Fundamentalist" for a brief overview of an inerrancy critique. For Hill's application of that critique to a particular example - the rapture - see the appendix of the same book. For more depth, see The Scripture Principle by Clark Pinnock and especially The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture by Paul Achtemeier.
Approaching the issue from the other side, check out Gleason Archer's and Norm Geisler's books on "bible discrepancies" - they have a few titles the names of which escape me. Read their analyses of some example "problem passages" and see for yourself how plausible you think their harmonizations typically are to someone who is not apriori committed to the premise.
quote:
I can't imagine how Sheol would have to mean heaven or ressurection just to find something about "heaven" or "ressurection" in the bible. I don't know of any main-stream theologians who equate Sheol with heaven or ressurection, either. Do you?
No, I'm not aware of any who do. The point, then, is that the biblical witness regarding the nature of the afterlife develops progressively over time:
- from the earliest Hebrew scriptures (eg parts of the Pentateuch, Psalms, Job, and the Kings/Samuel histories), which sometime depict death as final without mention of the soul (eg Genesis 3:19), but mostly depict it as ending in Sheol (eg Job 7:9), a rather bleak world of disembodied souls;
- through later Hebrew scriptures (eg the Daniel apocalypse and the later prophets like parts of Isaiah), which depict glorification for some and punishment for others after death (eg Isaiah 66:22-24), and sometimes suggest embodiment (resurrection) at this time of judgement (Daniel 12:2);
- and into the Christian scriptures, which largely amplify and focus on the resurrection concept (sometimes exhaustively, eg 1 Corinthians 15:12ff) absent mention of the soul, while also, especially in some of Jesus' sayings, seeming sometimes to endorse the idea of a disembodied soul as well (eg Matthew 10:28).
As I said above, summing across all this I think we arrive at a hope for life after death which specifically involves embodiment of some kind and judgement; with the soul being shadowy and incomplete, perhaps even mere metaphor, without the body. But I cannot assert, as inerrantists might, that all these passages teach this, only that they approximate and trend toward it as we would expect from a free human witness to inspired revelation. And as such I do not think that we can extract more information than this from those passages. If we try to make them all exactly fit in detail, making Sheol precisely compatible with resurrection, judgement and eternal life, we end up with a theological picture of the afterlife which is nowhere in one place taught within the Bible. In doing so we impose our own detailed theological construct on scripture, rather than letting the witness speak to us (even where it is divergent) and taking away its progressive gist.
quote:
quote:
As for whether resurrection from non-existence would constitute new creation - I suppose it might, or I suppose it might not. Either way would be defensible biblically - consider scriptural reference to the new creation as in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1....
My concern is not predominantly biblical - it is epistemological. But I don't understand what point you're making with the verses about a new creation?
Just that those verses suggest exactly what you have difficulty with - that the eschatological fulfillment does involve a further creation event, so that even if (death = non-existence) so that )(resurrection = new creation) this is not inconsistent with the witness of those biblical passages.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/20/2004 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
I've been posting here a lot lately and need to start trimming back. My apologies in advance if, after this, I'm not able to respond in this thread again.
Same here. I'm getting way behind on other stuff due to my addiction to this forum. Thanks for setting an example of self-discipline for me!
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't read much on harmonizations. Do you know of a good book on it? I have seen some strained examples of harmonizations like you're talking about on the internet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you said you're reading In God's Time, so check out (I think its) chapter 1, "I Was a Teenage Fundamentalist" for a brief overview of an inerrancy critique. For Hill's application of that critique to a particular example - the rapture - see the appendix of the same book. For more depth, see The Scripture Principle by Clark Pinnock and especially The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture by Paul Achtemeier.
Approaching the issue from the other side, check out Gleason Archer's and Norm Geisler's books on "bible discrepancies" - they have a few titles the names of which escape me. Read their analyses of some example "problem passages" and see for yourself how plausible you think their harmonizations typically are to someone who is not apriori committed to the premise.
I have not got much further in Hill's book, so hopefully it will be helpful. Thanks for the other recommendations.
quote:
and into the Christian scriptures, which largely amplify and focus on the resurrection concept (sometimes exhaustively, eg 1 Corinthians 15:12ff) absent mention of the soul, while also, especially in some of Jesus' sayings, seeming sometimes to endorse the idea of a disembodied soul as well (eg Matthew 10:28).
What is of interest here, is that Peter interprets the Psalm about Christ's SOUL not being left in HADES/SHEOL as directly related to His FLESH not seeing corruption (i.e. RESSURECTION). In other words, ressurection entails the return of a soul to a body. This idea seems consistent with all the other verses, though each verse only deals with that aspect that concerns the purpose of their immediate context.
quote:
If we try to make them all exactly fit in detail, making Sheol precisely compatible with resurrection, judgement and eternal life, we end up with a theological picture of the afterlife which is nowhere in one place taught within the Bible.
If Sheol is merely a place where dead souls are, I don't see how it, by itself, can be incompatible with ressurection, judgement, or eternal life.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for whether resurrection from non-existence would constitute new creation - I suppose it might, or I suppose it might not. Either way would be defensible biblically - consider scriptural reference to the new creation as in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My concern is not predominantly biblical - it is epistemological. But I don't understand what point you're making with the verses about a new creation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just that those verses suggest exactly what you have difficulty with - that the eschatological fulfillment does involve a further creation event, so that even if (death = non-existence) so that )(resurrection = new creation) this is not inconsistent with the witness of those biblical passages.
But that "further creation" is one of two things: 1) a refurbished old creation, or 2) a completely separate creation. Hence, it does not resolve my problem. If the human being is monistic, then ressurection of the original self would require the refashioning of it's original elements (which seems very unlikely given 1 Cor.). And even then, why would the "soul" aspect of that new monistic being really be "me" or "you." The bi-part or tri-part view makes the idea of ressurection in line with human intuition. And there are plenty of verses to support it.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2004 1:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
But that "further creation" is one of two things: 1) a refurbished old creation, or 2) a completely separate creation. Hence, it does not resolve my problem. If the human being is monistic, then ressurection of the original self would require the refashioning of it's original elements (which seems very unlikely given 1 Cor.). And even then, why would the "soul" aspect of that new monistic being really be "me" or "you." The bi-part or tri-part view makes the idea of ressurection in line with human intuition. And there are plenty of verses to support it.
Jeff, since we're Christians, what does Paul say it is?
Thanks,
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/21/2004 2:59 PM (GMT -6) | | POW,
'Bout time you got back on the forum.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
But that "further creation" is one of two things: 1) a refurbished old creation, or 2) a completely separate creation. Hence, it does not resolve my problem. If the human being is monistic, then ressurection of the original self would require the refashioning of it's original elements (which seems very unlikely given 1 Cor.). And even then, why would the "soul" aspect of that new monistic being really be "me" or "you." The bi-part or tri-part view makes the idea of ressurection in line with human intuition. And there are plenty of verses to support it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff, since we're Christians, what does Paul say it is?
If, by "it", you are referring to "view," I would say Paul speaks of a tri-part view of man. What do you think Paul says?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|