The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #1

Post by William »

Lately some of us have been arguing from three differing positions is which the bible can be used to defend all three. All three appear to agree that each individual has a "Soul" although there may be disagreement on what the exact function of a "Soul" is.

[1] A "Person" is "Spirit" and temporarily exists as a human being until the body dies then that "Person" enters an afterlife and is judged by "God" and is condemned or saved. Those saved go to "heaven" and those condemned go to "Hell" - or in some variances on this, are "exterminated".

[2] A "Person" a "Human being" and when the human being dies, that is the end of that person unless "God" judges them as "saved" in which case that person is resurrected and given a new body which will last forever more.

[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.

Often any different position which opposes another might logically mean that they both cannot be correct, assuming one or the other is true.

Both [1]&[2] fall into this category as they cannot both be true. [1]&[2] also both agree that [3] is false.

However, [3] Can be true without making the other two false.

And [3] - just as with [1]&[2] can be backed by the bible, depending on what parts of the bible once uses to do so.

The bible is interpreted throughout, based upon which position [1][2] or [3] is being used to interpret it through [the filter].

If [1]&[2] oppose each other but can still be "proven" by using the bible, then this makes the bible something of a contradiction.

But if [3] - although different from [1]&[2] does not oppose either [1]&[2] and can still be "proven" by using the bible just like [1]&[2], then [3] takes away the contradictory aspect of the bible which [1]&[2] create by being in opposition.

Question: Would it be fair to say therefore, that [3] is the best position to assume on the overall biblical script to do with the subject of the next phase [afterlife]?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #151

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #150]
Yes, the individual gets to decide for themselves. But people can argue the alternatives without having NDEs or OOBEs themselves. You've even said that some Christians have these but lack the knowledge of what they are. They will have these experiences and still make the same arguments other Christians do, right? You can't reject their view because they had the experiences. You reject them because of some other reason that doesn't depend on having the experience or not. If something is true and reasonable, then it is reasonable regardless of whether those discussing the issue have had certain experiences or not.
The problem with your reasoning is lack of experience and understanding.

You asked a question which I answered honestly. Does everyone experience the same thing? No they do not.
From that you have decided therefore that this somehow means that even if one has no experience, it is reasonable for that one to be able to offer argument which defeats the arguments of those who have had experience.

[Biblically we see no record of anyone defeating Jesus' statements regarding The Father showing him 'this and that' about the Alternate Realm by stating, "I have not been there but think it reasonable that my beliefs defeat your statements."] so am not entirely sure as to why you are making that argument.

I think yet again you are superimposing your position onto what I am saying and then arguing against an argument I have not myself presented.

I think you are forgetting that [3] understands that in all cases individuals create their own reality experience in the next phase based upon a number of things working in conjunction with each other, essentially the "personality" the individual identifies with being + the nature of the next phase environmental attributes which act as a screen in which the personality projects those beliefs etc onto = "we create for ourselves our next phase experiences."

Let us observe how this unfolds by creating a fictional character based upon typical reports one can easily access from the internet.

His name is Jay. He dies an atheist [having no beliefs in gods.]

In the next phase he finds himself in hell. He went through some kind of tunnel, heading for a light source but does not recollect any details about that...all he knows is that he is in hell.

In his agony he cries out to Jesus, because he remembers arguing with Christians who said that this would be his fate if he died an unbeliever.
When he cries out to Jesus to save him from this experience of hell he is having, a light appears above him and Jesus [looking just as one would expect Jesus to look] descends from that light and lifts him out of hell and takes him to some place in heaven.

There is interaction of some kind before he is told he will have to go back to his body because it is not his time yet.

He wakes up in a hospital to learn that he has been in a serious accident and nearly died. He is told that it is a miracle that he survived at all, let alone without sustaining any brain damage [due to head trauma or lack of oxygen take your pick].

When he recovers enough to leave hospital he joins a church and becomes a Christian, all because of his experience of the Next Phase.

During that experience Jesus never informs him that the hell he experienced was due to his creating it for himself. Jay does not know that information. Jay does not have to know that information.

Now some Christians in [1]&[2] might argue that the whole incident was due to head trauma [or because 'the devil' deceived him], but that hardly matters to Jay. As far as Jay is concerned, he got a second chance and is no longer a non-believer. He lives the rest of his day's praising the Lord and being thankful. His personality changes so significantly that he is no longer the personality he once was.
Yes. All else being equal, simplicity 'wins'. I think theism has many good arguments on its side that makes all else not equal between theism and naturalism. Naturalists disagree. You think your view has good reasoning on its side that makes all else not equal between position [3] and my position [2]. I disagree. The reason we were still talking about this is because you said complexity is a better pointer to truth, but you were confusing those two types of complexity, which I addressed.
My argument is that theism is the result of pre-recorded history in which alternate incidents have always been part of the human experience. These were always reported verbally and because of their nature [and indeed the nature of all experience] they take on the form of stories in the telling of them. That is the best argument for why theism exists...because alternate experiences have always existed. That is a sound and logical argument.

But if you are to argue 'simplicity' then the better position has to be that of emergence theory, because it simply argues that all things experienced - including consciousness - is the product of the brain and there is no afterlife, you are not a 'spirit' and when your body dies, that is the end of you.

Positions [1]&[2] have already stepped through the gateway and into theism [theistic ideas and explanations] and therefore have already entered the complexity.
If you really want to argue for simplicity, then drop your notions and beliefs about existing within a Creation, and all subsequent notions attached to that.
You did not respond to the following, as far as I could see:

Why can't the will be of the spirit-body composite?
From position [3] my answer is this;

"The will can be of the spirit-body composite if that is what you wish to believe, and come the next phase, you will experience the result of said belief."
Why is it only of the body or only of the Spirit?
Because the middle ground is wishy washy and distorted. Either one is a theist or one is not. Either the brain did it or The Creator did it.
Yea, yea; Nay, nay: [for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

"Evil" in this case is the wishy washy inability to make one's mind up because one resists knowledge and experience, in favor of remaining ignorant.]

But that is not you, because you are looking for the whole truth, if what you have said about that has been understood correctly by me. You are open to changes...

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #152

Post by The Tanager »

1. Our views and support
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmWhat don't you understand about the concept of beliefs creating environments which allow for those beliefs to be experienced as real?

What makes you believe that everything which can be experienced as real, must therefore be true?
We seem to have misunderstood each other. I don't believe that everything experienced as real must be true. My initial point was about you giving support for rather than explanations of your view. You have since done some of that.



2. Questions about my view
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pm
In position [1] the Creator is personal without being human. That's what I was saying. Maybe you meant something else. If so, then I perhaps we agree here?
We have discussed this in relation to false images. I was under the impression that you agreed that any form [in that case - the form of a being upon a throne being worshipped by all other beings not on said throne claiming or being claimed to be The Creator] , would have to be false.
I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other. I do believe such imagery is incomplete (rather than false). Having personality is different than imagery of the being that has personality, though.
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmBut if you are to argue 'simplicity' then the better position has to be that of emergence theory, because it simply argues that all things experienced - including consciousness - is the product of the brain and there is no afterlife, you are not a 'spirit' and when your body dies, that is the end of you.
If all other evidences and reasonings were inconclusive, then, I agree. But I said that I don't think all other evidences and reasonings are inconclusive. I think those sway the reasonableness over to theism.
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmPerhaps we have a different understanding of what "reasons" are? The reason you gave regarding [1]&[2] options being 'more reasonable' because they were 'simpler' does not make them 'more reasonable' at all, because one should expect the more expansive 'solution' [3] offers, in the face of the creation [physical universe] which allows for us to understand that The Creator works with complexity.
First off, I said it was more simple, actually Biblical, and supported by the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (along with the reliability of the Gospel writings, although I'm not sure I spelled the last bit out before).

Secondly, you seem to still be equivocating on 'simple' here. There is the simplicity that:

(a) concerns fewer layers of reality (or whatever) that must each be supported as true

and the simplicity that:

(b) concerns reality not being that intricate

I'm talking about (a). Here our views agree there is level X but your view posits an additional level Y underlying level X. Thus, you carry an extra burden of explaining the truth of level Y.

You seem to be talking about (b). I don't see how your view of reality is more intricately complex and beautiful. But even if it is, my view still has an intricate creation, so what would that have to do with truth?
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmDid you forget that eternal hellish experience or extermination for individuals was shown by [3] to being wasteful and shortsighted? Such belief as held by [1]&[2] does not align with The Creator and what we so far know of the creation [physical universe]...
Position [3] may have stated that but I haven't seen this statement shown to be true. It wasn't in the posts you linked me to, that I saw.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #153

Post by The Tanager »

3. Your view and the Bible
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmYou forget that I did not argue that being the case. Throughout this thread I have maintained that the bible was written by authors from all three positions.
That's what I originally thought you were claiming. As we got into actual passages you think show position [3], I questioned if I understood what you were claiming. I questioned that because you spoke of "small steps" that Jesus was taking rather than teaching them the full truth. To me that sounds like you are saying that the Bible doesn't directly teach [3] to be true, but teaches previous steps of knowledge, meeting people where they are at and working within positions [1] and [2], that will eventually prepare someone to accept position [3]. So, I stopped and asked for clarification. You have now clarified that you do think the Bible directly teaches position [3]. So, now, I can respond back to those previous points you made.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmNor did I claim that Jesus thought he was teaching something. Jesus knew what he was teaching.
Okay. I see no textual reasons to believe that is what Jesus knew He was teaching.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmDo you think that those in position [3] who understand themselves to be Eternal Spirit, would be concerned about trying to keep their lives? The concept is ridiculous for those of position [3] but not so for those of positions [1]&[2] who now, as then - are the majority.
Those who believe in the truth of [1] and [2] should not be concerned, either.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
The verse says "breath of life" not "breath of God," though. So, first you would need to argue for why "life" and "God" are the same thing here.
Is The Creator not "Life"? Something other than living? What do you believe?
There is a difference between thinking the Creator is the Life that is us and that the Living Creator makes other things living. You need to establish the former. So, no, my answer doesn't have to be "Yes" and, therefore, I don't think your interpretation is legitimized yet.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
Second, you would need to support why "image of God" and "breath of life/God" are the same thing.
That is more complex. Post 139 goes some way in answering this. Therein the "personality" is the "image" of the "Data of Experience."
Please read that and get back to me with any further clarifications you might require.
I think I understand what you are saying. I just don't see why I should believe that it is a true way to read the passage.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
Third, you need to support why the "Spirit of God" is also the same thing as the "Breath/image of life/God"?
John 4:24 1
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 [in this we see that the transformation from positions [1]&[2] to [3]]
Acts 17:24...
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24)." How does this support the Spirit of God being the same thing as the Breath/image of life/God?

"Now the Lord[d] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18)." I don't see the transformation from 1 and 2 to 3. Could you point things out more specifically? I see this as talking about us all being transformed into the image of God by the Spirit.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man (Acts 17:24)." God doesn't live in temples. All positions agree on this. How does this support the Spirit of God being the same as the Breath of life or the image of God?
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmAs I will continue to point out, biblical passages [and how life is lived in general] are interpreted depending upon the position the individual doing the interpreting, holds.
And, as I will keep pointing out, some interpretations are just bad ones that are read into the passage, not coming out of the passages themselves. I am interested in whether you can show that your interpretations come out of the passages.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmTaking into consideration that the claim re biblical writing is 'inspired' by The Creator, it should be no hard thing to understand that the writers were not necessarily writing from their own understandings alone. Nor should it be rejected that the writers were unaware that they were reaching out to a potential audience which had varying/vying positions of belief and thus allowed for that when considering what to write, that they could reach as many as possible, regardless of the readers positions of belief on particular matters.
Yes, I agree. I don't see that point helping or hurting your case.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmSearch out where Jesus makes claims regarding what his Father showed him.
Does he every directly mention specifics?
Yes. Regarding John 8:28, Jesus has just talked about being the light of the world, his coming death, how people must believe Jesus is "he" or they will die in their sins. Regarding John 12:49, Jesus had just been talking about believing in Him, His coming into the world as a light, and that He came to save the world.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmAlso, it is not just about 'surrounding verses' - but about the whole...the whole of the bible re the OP thread topic but beyond the biblical, there is also evidence. [3] position considers all things in relation to all other things.
I agree that it's about it all. I've seen no good support from any of these levels for your view. I've responded as to why I think that. I'll continue to listen and share my thoughts.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmSince we know biblically that the body was made of the Earth, wherein/from what, did The Creator get the Spirit? Did the body create the Spirit? [Emergence Theory]
The Creator didn't get it from anywhere; God brought humans to life from His own power. That's different than saying something like God's Spirit came out, filled dirt, and became what we call humans.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmIt is a natural progression from positions [1]&[2] to position [3] - through that medium [Christ] one becomes something from something else...through realization that one is not [and never has been] the body, but rather one is [and always will be] the Spirit.
This is specific to those who take that particular path.
This isn't what John 1:12-13 says, though, which was the passage under discussion that you responded to with this. It says that those who believe in Jesus are made children of God. Thus, that verse doesn't support your view here, even if your view is true. You offered the verse as Biblical support for your view. It's not, even if your view is true. Even if other Biblical passages support your view (which I don't think you've shown any that do).
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmMatthew 25:34-40;

Jesus is stating that there is more than one path to becoming a 'sheep', and in some instances this does not even require all those summary institutions which positions [1]&[2] endorse as part and parcel of being saved.
He is not saying here are the 5+ paths to becoming a sheep. He's saying the true sheep will actually have done these things.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmThat is the problem with positions [1]&[2] as The Creator is seen to be separate from 'us' and remains that way until we realize that this is not the case, and in that realization 'become' what we truly are by 'letting go of' notions which we previously [were lead to believe] thought of as 'who we are'. Who we really are is "of The Creator" not "separate from The Creator".
Why not think the problem with position [3] is that The Creator is seen to not be separate from 'us' and remains that way until we realize that this is not the case, and in that realization 'become' what we truly are by 'letting go of' notions which we previously [were lead to believe] thought of as 'who we are'. Who we really are is "of the Creator but separate from the Creator" not "the Creator" or "aspects of the Creator".
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmJesus is only acknowledging that The Creator has the power to do such, not that The Creator would use that power to do such a thing.
This is specific to those who have those understandings of The Creator from positions [1]&[2]...as I explained;
Why do you think this? The texts don't say that. Jesus gives other parables and teachings on people missing out on the Kingdom, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
You seem to imply an admittance that [1] and [2] make better sense of this verse when you state that "Jesus is speaking this to a specific audience who otherwise couldn't hope to accept the greater reality." They couldn't handle the truth, so Jesus had to speak to them in ways that cohere with [1] and [2] better.
Correct.
I asked you for passages which support your view over against [1] and [2] being true. You here admit that this passage you gave supports [1] and [2] over your view. So, why did you give it in support? If it takes stages, then use the verses that Jesus spoke addressing the later stages. If they don't exist in the Bible, then don't say [3] is supported by the Bible. Give the support, extra-Biblical, that supports the truth of [3] over the other alternatives.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #154

Post by The Tanager »

4. Your view and Beyond the Bible
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmThe simple explanation is - take away the individuals data of experience, and what remains?
The Individual. The Spirit. Take away the form the Spirit occupies and what remains? The Individual Spirit.
Why think this is true? Why think one can take away the individual from the data of experience?
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmThe problem with your reasoning is lack of experience and understanding.

You asked a question which I answered honestly. Does everyone experience the same thing? No they do not.
From that you have decided therefore that this somehow means that even if one has no experience, it is reasonable for that one to be able to offer argument which defeats the arguments of those who have had experience.

[Biblically we see no record of anyone defeating Jesus' statements regarding The Father showing him 'this and that' about the Alternate Realm by stating, "I have not been there but think it reasonable that my beliefs defeat your statements."] so am not entirely sure as to why you are making that argument.
You said that those who believe in position [3] had personal experience to back up the truth of their view and that those who believed in positions [1] and [2] would often argue against it by appealing to their "faith" without ever having the experiences themselves. So, I asked you if everyone who had NDEs and OOBEs agreed with position [3]. You said they do not; some remain believers in positions [1] and [2]. Therefore, having the experience alone does not support one position over the other.

Thus, one must turn to some other reasoning to support one view over the other. That same reasoning is open to those who have had NDEs and OOBEs and those who have not, because reasoning is different than having an experience. So, yes, it is possible for Person A to offer reasoning that defeats Person B's interpretations of their own personal experiences, regardless of whether Person A shared such an experience or not. Those in Jesus' day found no reasoning to defeat Jesus' teachings. Perhaps those who argue against your interpretation of your OOBE(s) have found none either, perhaps they have. I was simply saying that your intepretation could be wrong because of how you seemed to be arguing that your experience supported the truth of your interpretation over alternatives. It doesn't. It contradicts your own belief that those who believe in positions [1] and [2] also have those experiences and don't convert to position [3].
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:00 pmBecause the middle ground is wishy washy and distorted. Either one is a theist or one is not. Either the brain did it or The Creator did it.
Yea, yea; Nay, nay: [for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

"Evil" in this case is the wishy washy inability to make one's mind up because one resists knowledge and experience, in favor of remaining ignorant.]

But that is not you, because you are looking for the whole truth, if what you have said about that has been understood correctly by me. You are open to changes...
Just because some things are binary, that doesn't mean everything is. Why do you think the true self must either be spirit or body? There are at least three logical alternatives: spirit alone, body alone, or a spirit-body composite being. You need reasons to rule out the third option if you think it isn't an actual option.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #155

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #153]
William wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
Did you forget that eternal hellish experience or extermination for individuals was shown by [3] to being wasteful and shortsighted? Such belief as held by [1]&[2] does not align with The Creator and what we so far know of the creation [physical universe]...
Position [3] may have stated that but I haven't seen this statement shown to be true. It wasn't in the posts you linked me to, that I saw.
Image

That is a picture of the details of a human cell. Does it strike you as logical that The Creator of this remarkable interacting device would find it acceptable solution to 'the problem of evil' as those in positions [1]&[2] expect?

That alone is sufficient evidence that The Creator is far more intricate than said expectations lead us to believe of The Creators Person.

But yes - there is any amount of evidence which, when accepted, renders such beliefs as [1]&[2] as being woefully misinformed.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #156

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
William wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:42 pm [Replying to The Tanager in post #153]
William wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
Did you forget that eternal hellish experience or extermination for individuals was shown by [3] to being wasteful and shortsighted? Such belief as held by [1]&[2] does not align with The Creator and what we so far know of the creation [physical universe]...
Position [3] may have stated that but I haven't seen this statement shown to be true. It wasn't in the posts you linked me to, that I saw.
Image

That is a picture of the details of a human cell. Does it strike you as logical that The Creator of this remarkable interacting device would find it acceptable solution to 'the problem of evil' as those in positions [1]&[2] expect?
Not that [1] and [2] are accurate in your representation, but if you are referring to the defeat and/or destruction and/or rooting out of evil (and things that cause harm, then yes, I do think that is logical.

Doesn't the body (down to a cellular level) produce an immune response to protect itself by fighting - and destroying/ridding itself of - things that cause it harm?



Peace again to you all.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #157

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #154]
William wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:02 pm
Do you think that those in position [3] who understand themselves to be Eternal Spirit, would be concerned about trying to keep their lives? The concept is ridiculous for those of position [3] but not so for those of positions [1]&[2] who now, as then - are the majority.
Those who believe in the truth of [1] and [2] should not be concerned, either.
Which of course, swings back to my saying that this is why Jesus taught what he did to those who might listen. Their beliefs place them in a more protective environment [expectation/belief]
There is a difference between thinking the Creator is the Life that is us and that the Living Creator makes other things living.
First let us word that in a balanced manner before we then discuss 'establishing' anything.

Is there a difference between thinking the Creator is the Life that is us and that the Living Creator makes other things living?
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24)." How does this support the Spirit of God being the same thing as the Breath/image of life/God?

"Now the Lord[d] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18)." I don't see the transformation from 1 and 2 to 3. Could you point things out more specifically? I see this as talking about us all being transformed into the image of God by the Spirit.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man (Acts 17:24)." God doesn't live in temples. All positions agree on this. How does this support the Spirit of God being the same as the Breath of life or the image of God?
First we need to come to an agreement as to the question.
Q: Is there a difference between thinking the Creator is the Life that is us and that the Living Creator makes other things living?
William wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:02 pm
Search out where Jesus makes claims regarding what his Father showed him.
Does he every directly mention specifics?
Yes. Regarding John 8:28, Jesus has just talked about being the light of the world, his coming death, how people must believe Jesus is "he" or they will die in their sins. Regarding John 12:49, Jesus had just been talking about believing in Him, His coming into the world as a light, and that He came to save the world.
Those are outlines, not specifics.
Since we know biblically that the body was made of the Earth, wherein/from what, did The Creator get the Spirit? Did the body create the Spirit? [Emergence Theory]
The Creator didn't get it from anywhere; God brought humans to life from His own power. That's different than saying something like God's Spirit came out, filled dirt, and became what we call humans.
Then if the creator did not get the Spirit from anywhere, you cannot claim otherwise and still expect your claim to be taken seriously. You need to be able to explain how The Creator created "Spirits" through The Creator creating the human form. Either "Spirit" emerges from the form, or - as the Bible says it, "Spirit" is of The Creator and is The Creator...thus the breath of The Creator which was place into the form from outside of the form is diametrically opposed to emergence theory.
It says that those who believe in Jesus are made children of God.
What makes them this way? What allows for them to see that this is what they truly are? I am simply pointing out that it is realization.
He is not saying here are the 5+ paths to becoming a sheep. He's saying the true sheep will actually have done these things.
Sheep naturally walk different paths. He is saying that there are those [in all three positions] who will inherit the makings of their beliefs. Those in [1]&[2] positions are prone to judge [3] as "Not what Jesus was saying" but that does not matter since Jesus is saying that there are those who walk a path unrestricted by religious belief systems who will receive a welcoming acknowledgment, much as with the rich mans son who returned after living his own life his own way and learning therein who he really was. Positions [1]&[2] are the 'good son' who stayed at home and did what his father wanted. Position [3] are those who broke the mold and lived to tell others about it.
Why not think the problem with position [3] is that The Creator is seen to not be separate from 'us' and remains that way until we realize that this is not the case, and in that realization 'become' what we truly are by 'letting go of' notions which we previously [were lead to believe] thought of as 'who we are'. Who we really are is "of the Creator but separate from the Creator" not "the Creator" or "aspects of the Creator".


Good question and one which I asked myself, and which was answered in the journey into realization which I took.

Because thinking the way you ask "why not think" did not bring about any noteworthy answers and subsequent change in outlook and perspective etc...I tried that and it failed me miserably...until I learned how to connect the dots...then it became most apparent.
Jesus is only acknowledging that The Creator has the power to do such, not that The Creator would use that power to do such a thing.
This is specific to those who have those understandings of The Creator from positions [1]&[2]...as I explained;
Why do you think this?
Did I not explain why I think this, where you got the snippet quote from?
I asked you for passages which support your view over against [1] and [2] being true.
I will remind you that I have never said positions [1]&[2] are untrue. They are incomplete.
Give the support, extra-Biblical, that supports the truth of [3] over the other alternatives.
One example of scientific examination...

The idea of 'remote viewing' itself moves against the idea that we are only products of the form. Rather we are the function within the form.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #158

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #155]
William wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
The simple explanation is - take away the individuals data of experience, and what remains?
The Individual. The Spirit. Take away the form the Spirit occupies and what remains? The Individual Spirit.
Why think this is true?
I have been explaining why.
Why think one can take away the individual from the data of experience?
Because the individual [Spirit] is not the data of experience. Is that who you think of yourself as being?
You said that those who believe in position [3] had personal experience to back up the truth of their view and that those who believed in positions [1] and [2] would often argue against it by appealing to their "faith" without ever having the experiences themselves. So, I asked you if everyone who had NDEs and OOBEs agreed with position [3]. You said they do not; some remain believers in positions [1] and [2]. Therefore, having the experience alone does not support one position over the other.
It is dependent upon the position the individual is within as to what the outcome will be. In the case of Jay, he died an atheist and moved from that to position [1] or [2] [not [3]] as a consequence. He did not 'remain' an atheist...he moved into [1] or [2] through his experience.
What I said [overall] regarding all positions is that people will create there own reality in the next phase based upon [and among other variables within their overall psyches] their individual beliefs and expectations.
It contradicts your own belief that those who believe in positions [1] and [2] also have those experiences and don't convert to position [3].
I did not say any such thing. Give an example of someone in positions [1]or[2] who would know that they are the ones creating their experience. They do not know this is what is occuring and so cannot undertake the transition to [3] without that knowledge.

This is why I also spoke about 'Soul Retrievers" in the Astral Planes who work with those in [1]&[2] to try to bring them into the fuller knowledge.

Why do you insist upon cutting away that information and then retort with straw? Argue against what I have actually written not against how you conveniently ignore some parts of what I have actually written in order to then tell me what "I said".

I may have to respond to any further arguments made in this fashion with "That is not what I said/not everything I said". Otherwise it is a kind of 'Simon say's" game in which "Simon" is getting me to repeat myself and still does not listen. I find such a game to being dishonest. And thus not something I enjoy playing.
Why do you think the true self must either be spirit or body?
I don't. What I think is that the true self is Spirit, NOT body.

Because we are not the data of experience. We are that which experiences what can be experienced.
There are at least three logical alternatives: spirit alone, body alone, or a spirit-body composite being. You need reasons to rule out the third option if you think it isn't an actual option.
No I do not. I have already clearly explained that we are Spirits having an experience within human form.

I showed how the Biblical story says that the Spirit alone is of God and that the body alone is a lifeless form [cadaver] I have also said that the Spirit and the body together produce data of experience and that [1]&[2] are self identifying as being "The Body" which somehow created the "Spirit" through The Creator [somehow] being able to make the body 'living' and that this "Spirit" which the body created, then goes on to the next phase I explained why and how that it is not necessary to understand one's self in that way. And how not doing so, opens up the world of [3] to the individual perception - adding such experience to the overall data of experience being had.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #159

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #157]

Image
William wrote:That is a picture of the details of a human cell. Does it strike you as logical that The Creator of this remarkable interacting device would find it acceptable solution to 'the problem of evil' as those in positions [1]&[2] expect?

That alone is sufficient evidence that The Creator is far more intricate than said expectations lead us to believe of The Creators Person.

But yes - there is any amount of evidence which, when accepted, renders such beliefs as [1]&[2] as being woefully misinformed.
Tammy wrote:Doesn't the body (down to a cellular level) produce an immune response to protect itself by fighting - and destroying/ridding itself of - things that cause it harm?
This is expectant reasoning for those of positions [1]&[2] Tammy.

The harmful environment we find ourselves within, is then seen to being 'evil' when it is simply an environment.
In that, to believe that The Creator can and obviously does create such places for Spirits to experience, does not mean that The Creator of the Creation is really 'evil' as some might think.

The idea derived from positions [1]&[2] that somehow 'evil' is a threat to [their image of] The Creator, is silly. There is nothing which could threaten an Eternal being. Time itself does not exist, so however 'long it takes' to elegantly bring about universal balance and harmony for all Spirits, is not an issue as if somehow The Creator doesn't 'deal with this crisis soon' The Creator will become 'infected',

Sure - it is an understandable enough belief for those of [1]&[2] but it is not true.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #160

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
William wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:42 pm [Replying to tam in post #157]

Image
William wrote:That is a picture of the details of a human cell. Does it strike you as logical that The Creator of this remarkable interacting device would find it acceptable solution to 'the problem of evil' as those in positions [1]&[2] expect?

That alone is sufficient evidence that The Creator is far more intricate than said expectations lead us to believe of The Creators Person.

But yes - there is any amount of evidence which, when accepted, renders such beliefs as [1]&[2] as being woefully misinformed.
Tammy wrote:Doesn't the body (down to a cellular level) produce an immune response to protect itself by fighting - and destroying/ridding itself of - things that cause it harm?
This is expectant reasoning for those of positions [1]&[2] Tammy.
Perhaps because it makes sense.
The harmful environment we find ourselves within, is then seen to being 'evil' when it is simply an environment.
The 'complex' cell is your analogy, William. Unless you're going on a pretty/cool picture alone, the reaction to harm is part of that cell, part of the body, part of an immunization response.
In that, to believe that The Creator can and obviously does create such places for Spirits to experience, does not mean that The Creator of the Creation is really 'evil' as some might think.
This has nothing to do with anything I said, and I never made that claim.
The idea derived from positions [1]&[2] that somehow 'evil' is a threat to [their image of] The Creator, is silly.


Um... as far as I know, no one in those positions (or the position I shared) thinks that. So this seems to be a bit of a strawman.
There is nothing which could threaten an Eternal being.


Who said otherwise?

There are things that can threaten us though.

The example that you are using (about the cell) also shows this.
Time itself does not exist, so however 'long it takes' to elegantly bring about universal balance and harmony for all Spirits, is not an issue as if somehow The Creator doesn't 'deal with this crisis soon' The Creator will become 'infected',
No one suggested that to begin with.
Sure - it is an understandable enough belief for those of [1]&[2] but it is not true.
You made quite the leap from what I said. But I can't respond to these claims I never made except to say that I never made them.


Peace again to you.

Post Reply