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]?

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Post #141

Post by 2timothy316 »

myth-one.com wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:18 pm
But here is a quote from "Why did Jesus die" on the jw.org website:

Although sinful humans deserve the penalty of death, God extended to them “the riches of his undeserved kindness.” (Ephesians 1:7) His provision to redeem mankind​—sending Jesus as a perfect sacrifice​—was both profoundly just and supremely merciful.

This statement appears to claim that Jesus' death on the cross saved mankind.

If so, that is incorrect.
So mankind could've been saved without Jesus' death? Or are you saying Jesus didn't have to be a cross or stake for Jesus to die on?

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 #142

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #141]

Firstly - Thank You for taking the time to respond.
No. I believe I am spirit and body. The spirit part is immaterial, the body part is material.
What happens to the Spirit part when the body part dies?
(1) The human possesses a will

(2) The human form possesses a will that has been surrendered to it by the Spirit

The default position is agnosticism. I believe (1) is Biblical and more rational than (2) mainly because of simplicity. All else being equal, I think the simpler answer is the more rational one. And I mean 'simple' in the sense of having less layers of reality to account for.
The attraction to simplicity is explained in the positions of [1]&[2] and are for those who choose not to go deeper [3].
One can see through observing the physical universe that there are layers of complexity in its creation. Why would one expect it to be any different in regard to the next phase?
The additional layer adds a burden on the one that holds that view to establish it.
As with all things metaphysical, there is no burden to establish anything. Nothing biblical has ever been established as factual. It has only been established as belief.
So, for me to rationally believe your view is more sound than (1), you would need to either (a) argue that complexity of view is more rational or (b) show that not all else is equal, that I've missed some evidence that sways the support to (2) from (1).
It is not about missing evidence but in how the bible can be interpreted.
How have you ruled out the alternative that it only seemed to you that you were having an out of body experience?
I have not ruled it out at all. I accept that Emergence Theory could be the truth and that consciousness is a product of the physical universe and that when the body dies, that is the end of the person.
However, because that is a dead end, while I yet live, I investigate other possibilities - such as we exist within a creation...and all that branches off from that idea.
This allows me to extract from the subjective experience, information which supports that there are layers of complexity associated with the phenomena.
Emergence Theory is the least complex [most simplest] explanation one can have. If one wishes to argue for simplicity being the best position to adopt, one had best not set foot into the world of Theism.

If one has entered that world, one should abandon simplicity altogether.
I wouldn't say it is one of the main reasons for belief in theism but it is a reason some are theists. I don't have data on it, though, so I'm speaking anecdotally. Do you have evidence that backs this up?
There is plenty of information to be drawn from the internet. Think of the internet as the manifestation of human ideas which have always been around but never before able to have been shared in such a manner.
Logically one can easily understand that Theistic insights did not occur from nowhere. They came into the situation through alternate experiences folk had, in which they could not explain 'why' and thus created stories designed to help explain. Coming from darkness [ignorance] into light [knowledge] - many of the mythologies were spun according to how humans were, at the time ...so 'the gods' were quite similar to human beings - but more powerfully positioned.
Why do you think this faith/experience distinction is valid? Christians who believe in 1 and 2 will claim they have experienced the unseen as well, not that they just 'have faith' as you seem to be meaning that term.


The faith is in having other people interpret what it is they experience and accepting that interpretation as the truth. [1]&[2] are such positions.
[3] moves away from that because the explanations don't align with the experience.
As an example, I have shared my OOBEs with those in positions [1]&[2] and have received explanations which range from "brain disfunction" to "Evil Spirits deceiving me" - neither of which align with the actual experiences had.
Therefore - logically - one has to move beyond the range of those explanations. Ultimately this requires having faith in oneself in relation to ones relationship with "The Creator".
In the case of [3] "oneself" is identified as "Spirit" which is identified as "an aspect of The Creators Consciousness". The trust is not bound within the idea that there is the one and there is the other. But that the one is the other and therefore can be trusted.

Ultimately the relationship formed naturally moves one from positions [1]&[2] into position [3], because all medium is removed once the task of the medium has been accomplished.
1, 2, and 3 are all not aligned. You keep saying that position 3 places 1 and 2 within it, but you re-interpret 1 and 2. Don't be fooled by the semantics. All three are not aligned with each other.
As I said... "Also [as I have noted in previous posts in this thread] the evidence that positions [1]&[2] are not aligned and thus lack solid consensus agreed upon."
And re [3] "Those in position [3] know, and have no problem in seeing where [1]&[2] are placed within [3] whereas [1]&[2] – while able to agree in some areas, cannot agree [fit the one into the other] on other beliefs, and outright reject [3] as even relevant."

Image
As to the argument that the Spirit surrenders its will to the body – this has to do with the default setting of the initialization of Spirit with Form...and the form is [must be] designed to inhibit any and all memory of a past existence.
This is begging the question. I'm asking you for the rational support for believing these things are true, not to explain how it works if it is true.
Can one explain how something works if it isn't true?
Positions [1]&[2] also explain how those work, without any additional 'rational support' for doing so.
I didn't say the body of flesh possesses a will. I said the human (spirit and body) possesses a will.
Well if the will isn't of the flesh then it must be of the Spirit.
I believe consciousness is the immaterial part, the spirit, the soul.
And thus where will is sourced.
I see no reason to believe the Spirit has eternally existed yet doesn't know it because of the human body and the rest of your view. I know that is your view. Explaining what it is is not supporting it.
What would you accept as supporting evidence other than explaining ones view?
I see no textual reasons to believe that is what Jesus thought He was teaching.
Nor did I claim that Jesus thought he was teaching something. Jesus knew what he was teaching.
His audience thought the kingdom would be a political kingdom.
Correct. This is because they were lead to believe [by the religious of those times] to expect that to be the case.
However, not all religions taught this. Jesus was gathering in the loose ends and he understood the different positions [1]&[2] and this can be recognized in his teaching.
Then Jesus talks about the days of the Son of Man, people not being ready, and people trying to keep or lose their life. What textual clues lead you to your interpretation of this passage?
Jesus understood how folk would react depending upon their positions of belief. 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.
Thank you for taking the time to find these for me to consider. So, I see these claims in [3]:
(a) persons are eternal
(b) spirits
(c) in human form
(d) upon death the Spirit moves to the next phase they create for their self due to what they believe, their attitude, and their previous actions.
Correct.
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?
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.
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...
[3] is the oldest view and the most suppressed / Post 6
First, assuming these claims are true, how is this support for the truth of [3]?
Is the foundation built upon the house?
Second, what is the evidence for these two claims being true? I see assertions but no support in post #6.
What came first, the verbal or the written? The imagined or the experienced?
You decide. Is alternate experience simply an indication that Emergence Theory is truth?
[3] can be true without making the other two false
[post 17]
No, it cannot. If [3] is correct, then the other two are falsely experienced as truth, i.e., they are actually false.
All temporary experience is 'false' in that sense. Yet it is true in that it is experienced as 'real'.
What you are arguing is that they are false because they are believed to be true but will eventually be shown to be 'not the whole truth'. I am not using those terms in that manner.
I am not arguing that [1]&[2] are false beliefs. I am arguing that they are incomplete beliefs. They are partly truth, not wholly truth. I am arguing that this is acceptable and thus not 'fase' in the sense you appear to be using the word.
Yes, they are experienced (where if 1 or 2 are true, 3 will never actually be experienced) but they are false views.
They are incomplete views rather than false. That they are believed to be complete truth is where the falsity lies.

And no. [3] can be experienced and those who experience [1]&[2] can indeed experience [3] but in order to do so they have to acknowledge that their positions were not all truth, just partial truth. [Adequate but not all that is and can be experienced.]
4. Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24 / Post 17 & 24
These don't say anything about creating our next phase of life. They don't come out and directly contradict that belief (it was probably a view that the writer never had in mind to address) but that is different than saying these verses support that belief.
As 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.
Therefore, while your rebuttal does not outright state my interpretation is incorrect, you are currently forced by your own position to make the statement which assumes that the writer never had [3] in mind to address.

Taking 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.
Matthew 13:36-43
[Post 17]
These verses don't speak of people creating their own afterlife phases of Hell. It says Jesus' angels will gather out of His kingdom the causes of sin and law-breakers, throwing them into the fiery furnace. They don't create their own Hells for themselves.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The point of this particular group of parables was intended for those who were in [1]&[2] positions of belief.
Evidence given regarding the many stories of folk experiencing hells show that - for the most part there are no Angels involved in the experience. People just end up there. And they are hellish experiences but not one I have read is like another, except in that many share the same - they call out to Jesus and Jesus appears and assists them out of their terrible situation.
The experiences are unique to the individual and when coupled with evidence which is reported by those who are well practiced in the ability to surf the astral planes as observers, the reports are the same. The properties of the astral have it that what an individual believes as well as the state of the individuals overall demeanor have everything to do with creating said experiences for themselves.
Practitioners know this for themselves. They are aware of their thoughts and do not allow those thoughts to be such that bad experiences are manifested.

That is principle why [1]&[2] position of belief are there. To help people arrange their beliefs into something which will not be horrific for them.
Reports from those who have experienced NDEs and Astral Travel
All of these reports agree with each other on [3] being true?
No. Some come back from them still consciously unaware that they have experienced something they created for themselves. For those ones, they are completely taken off guard. For practitioners, yes. They agree with each other on that point.
John 8:38
[post 17]
In response to tam, you seemed to refer to this in speaking about Astral Travel and the various universes one could experience, the Creator providing insight into Spirits being in human form. Jesus directly mentions none of these things nor the four claims above as far as I can see, but point out the surrounding verses that do, if you believe they are there.
Search out where Jesus makes claims regarding what his Father showed him.
Does he every directly mention specifics?
Also, 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.
[1] is in conflict with the idea that the Eternal Creator is a person in its own right
This is simply not true. A believer in [1] could assert that a human person is spirit and body, not that all persons are spirit and body.
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]
Also the way you have worded the above, it appears you are saying that [1] believes that only some people are "Spirit and body"....is that what you are saying?
John 1:12-13
[Post 63]
You then claim that understanding one is an Eternal Spirit of the Eternal Creator, this realization, is the becoming and power Jesus spoke of.
Here is John 1:12-13 (ESV):
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
It doesn't say those who realized who they were become children of God. It's those who receive Jesus, who believe in His name, that Jesus gives sonship to. We aren't born of blood, nor the flesh's will, nor our will. We are born of God. God does it, not us.
It 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.
Remember this parable;

Matthew 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.
The natural progression of those receiving through faith is to have their faith lead them to knowledge. One without the other is an incomplete thing.
Think on this;
When someone realizes that they are Spirit, they realize they are not the form, where not born of flesh, are not the result of the brain [Emergence - the "flesh's will/our or another's will".]
We are born of God. God does it, not us.


That 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".
First, disagreement over something does not show that both views are wrong. It shows at least one of them is wrong.
Unless one observes this from position [3] wherein "wrong" is not really the correct way to see it.
Both positions in their own ways are "not totally correct". Those in either position see that the other is 'wrong' and that they are 'right', yet position [3] see that neither position is correct, but both have correct things within them.

Re: The Next Phase [Afterlife] these beliefs will be played out according to the expectations [and other properties] of those in both positions, and this is a loving and just manner n which The Creator allows us each to learn [eventually] who we actually are, rather than who we believe we actually are.
Second, [3] disagrees with [1] and [2], so by your principle above [3] (and every view on the subject for that matter) must be misinformation.
[3] only disagrees with both [1]&[2] in relation to self identification, because [3] realizes that it is in the self identification where [1]&[2] are mistaken.
[3] does not disagree with the subsequent results of the beliefs of [1]&[2]. [3] knows [1]&[2] are safely contained within The Realm of Judgement, each individual experiencing something they are unaware they have created for themselves through their beliefs. [3] Understand that this condition is temporary...although in terms of the everlasting, 'temporary' can still be a long time.

But they are not left to their fate forever.
Matt 10:28
[Post 129]
I'm not sure how this is support for [3]. It seems to directly contradict (a) in that soul and body can be destroyed. It doesn't seem to support (b) because it doesn't stop at "but are not able to kill the soul" but goes on to say "but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." It connects soul and body as the one who will be in Hell, it doesn't say the true spirit is inhabiting another bodily form (c) in the afterlife Hell. And regarding (d), it doesn't say one creates their next phase of life, it says another has dominion over them to destroy their soul and body in Hell.
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;
Again - Jesus is speaking this to a specific audience who otherwise couldn't hope to accept the greater reality. They do not see themselves in any way as "Eternal Spirits" and even to suggest that to them would be seen as blasphemy and a sin worthy of being executed for committing.

Those types require an image of The Creator whom will impart their kind of justice - justice as they understand it and expect it to be. Justice that they will get to experience when they create their next phase reality.
[post 129]

There is no requirement for The Creator to actually destroy data of experience [souls] and the body [as we know] is designed to self destruct [die], so Jesus reference to the body also being "destroyed in hell" is for a specific audience who believe in such things.
Sure "The Creator has the power" but that is not the same thing as saying that The Creator will use the power.
Sometimes the fearful respond to fear-tactics and make positive adjustments...it is a device to get the sheep through the gate and into the protection which their beliefs propel them...

Can the Data of Experience [soul] be deleted? Yes. Can the Eternal Spirit be deleted? No.
If the Data of Experience is deleted, then the Spirit has nothing to show for its time in human form. That is somewhat a tragic waste, and [3] allows a way in which that does not need to happen.
12. Matt 25:46
[Post 129]
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. [1]&[2] are judgment based positions. They hold the types, that when push comes to shove, will seek to suppress and even kill if they disagreed with anything which threatens their own positions.
But one still wants them to eventually come into all truth, and this is easier to accomplish in stages.
People - through their own particular beliefs, had different expectations. [ John 7:40]
John 10:31-42
[Post 129]
You might be using this verse to support that Jesus chose not to divulge truths He believed because they coudn't handle it and would try to stone Him. But Jesus obviously was willing to teach things they disbelieved because He does it right here.
Yes - he does so by reminding them of their own script-based beliefs. It is a fine line to walk between divulging information which will get you killed immediately by an angry crowd of zealots and placing oil upon those waters to sooth and calm such types...in this case it didn't help as they just became more infuriated...

The truth presented in small bytes isn't the whole truth, but it is still better than no truth at all.
Or you might be using this for its teaching. Jesus is okay with people being called gods. But that we are Eternal Spirits of the Eternal God isn't what Jesus is saying. Jesus distinguishes Himself from those the Psalmist calls 'gods'. This can be seen in vv. 35-36:
And rightly so, because he understands the truth. Those who come to that realization also understand the truth. He is not speaking to those who realize they are Eternal Spirits of The Eternal Creator, or even trying to convince them of that truth. He stands before these ones, fearlessly secure in the knowledge that he knows who he is.

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
Yes - inserted into this world for the purpose of bringing as many who choose, [3] into the full knowledge of the truth of who we each really are.

And for the rest, [1]&[2], inserting beliefs which would allow for a better chance of securing those ones in safe places - where they can be worked with in order to bring them also into the full knowledge of the truth of who they each really are... [John 14...]

Small Steps.

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 #143

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmFirstly - Thank You for taking the time to respond.
You are welcome.



Our views and support
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmAs with all things metaphysical, there is no burden to establish anything. Nothing biblical has ever been established as factual. It has only been established as belief.
There is a burden to establish the reasonableness of our beliefs if one cares about rationality. I do.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmCan one explain how something works if it isn't true?
Yes. One can explain how Santa Claus works although he isn't real.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmPositions [1]&[2] also explain how those work, without any additional 'rational support' for doing so.
But they can also offer rational support. I seek after rational support.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmWhat would you accept as supporting evidence other than explaining ones view?
Rational arguments and Biblical support (since I think there are rational arguments that support the Bible as true).



Questions about my view
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmWhat happens to the Spirit part when the body part dies?
This was one of the things I was undecided on. Currently, I think either (1) the spirit is temporarily on its own (so to speak) but that it isn't fully human at that point and will be reunited with a body for the rest of eternity or (2) what seems like a break for us (that time passes between, say, my grandmother's death and the new heavens and the new earth) isn't experienced as a break (by Grandma). After she died, she immediately experiences the resurrection, the judgment, the new heavens and the new earth, as though no time had passed. I haven't given this question a ton of study and thought, though.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
This is simply not true. A believer in [1] could assert that a human person is spirit and body, not that all persons are spirit and body.
Also the way you have worded the above, it appears you are saying that [1] believes that only some people are "Spirit and body"....is that what you are saying?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there are different kinds of persons: divine persons, angelic persons, human persons.



Your view and the Bible
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmYes - inserted into this world for the purpose of bringing as many who choose, [3] into the full knowledge of the truth of who we each really are.

And for the rest, [1]&[2], inserting beliefs which would allow for a better chance of securing those ones in safe places - where they can be worked with in order to bring them also into the full knowledge of the truth of who they each really are... [John 14...]

Small Steps.
Okay, so this is what I'm hearing here from you. Correct me if I'm wrong. The Bible doesn't say [3] is true. It works off of [1] or [2] being true in order to slowly bring these people into a belief that [3] is true. Once one accepts [3] is true, then one can read that view back into Biblical passages and get a fuller picture than the verses themselves tell. Is this what you are saying? If so, then we don't need to address specific Biblical verses. If not, then I will respond to your comments on the Biblical passages.

Until then I will respond to the extra-Biblical support you seem to be offering for your position in the next post.

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 #144

Post by The Tanager »

Your view and Beyond the Bible
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmThe attraction to simplicity is explained in the positions of [1]&[2] and are for those who choose not to go deeper [3].
One can see through observing the physical universe that there are layers of complexity in its creation. Why would one expect it to be any different in regard to the next phase?
There is a difference between saying there are different layers of complex reality that need to be accounted for (what I was talking about) and that the layers of reality are simple or complex (what your critique seems to address).

In the sense I'm talking about theism is more complex than naturalism. All else being equal, that favors naturalism. Yet, all else isn't equal. I think there are numerous arguments that point to the truth of theism over naturalism. In this same sense, my theistic worldview is simpler than your worldview. All else being equal, that favors my theistic worldview.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmThe faith is in having other people interpret what it is they experience and accepting that interpretation as the truth. [1]&[2] are such positions.
[3] moves away from that because the explanations don't align with the experience.
As an example, I have shared my OOBEs with those in positions [1]&[2] and have received explanations which range from "brain disfunction" to "Evil Spirits deceiving me" - neither of which align with the actual experiences had.
Therefore - logically - one has to move beyond the range of those explanations. Ultimately this requires having faith in oneself in relation to ones relationship with "The Creator".
In the case of [3] "oneself" is identified as "Spirit" which is identified as "an aspect of The Creators Consciousness". The trust is not bound within the idea that there is the one and there is the other. But that the one is the other and therefore can be trusted.
That is not the only logical option. The other logical option is that the alternatives are defeaters for your interpretation of your experiences. There is no rational principle that the view that says two things are the same thing is more trustworthy than the view that says two things are two things.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmAs I said... "Also [as I have noted in previous posts in this thread] the evidence that positions [1]&[2] are not aligned and thus lack solid consensus agreed upon."
And re [3] "Those in position [3] know, and have no problem in seeing where [1]&[2] are placed within [3] whereas [1]&[2] – while able to agree in some areas, cannot agree [fit the one into the other] on other beliefs, and outright reject [3] as even relevant."
Yes, but when those in position [3] know and have no problem in seeing where [1] & [2] are placed within [3], what those in position [3] are doing is changing what [1] and [2] are, in order to fit it in. Thus, the evidence that positions [1], [2], and [3] are not aligned and thus lack solid consensus agree upon. So, if [1] and [2] not being aligned is reason to reject both as untrue, then it is also reason to reject [3], and any view on the subject one could think of, as untrue.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmWell if the will isn't of the flesh then it must be of the Spirit.
Why? Why can't it just be the spirit-body composite's will? Now, I do think the will is immaterial, but that doesn't mean that that is all a human is. Humans have various appetites and capacities.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
[3] is the oldest view and the most suppressed / Post 6

...

First, assuming these claims are true, how is this support for the truth of [3]?
Is the foundation built upon the house?
No.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pm
Second, what is the evidence for these two claims being true? I see assertions but no support in post #6.
What came first, the verbal or the written? The imagined or the experienced?
You decide. Is alternate experience simply an indication that Emergence Theory is truth?
You tell me what you believe since you are trying to support your claim and why these questions answer my critique.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmAll temporary experience is 'false' in that sense. Yet it is true in that it is experienced as 'real'.
What you are arguing is that they are false because they are believed to be true but will eventually be shown to be 'not the whole truth'. I am not using those terms in that manner.
I am not arguing that [1]&[2] are false beliefs. I am arguing that they are incomplete beliefs. They are partly truth, not wholly truth. I am arguing that this is acceptable and thus not 'fase' in the sense you appear to be using the word.
In the way I'm using it incomplete beliefs are still false beliefs.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmUnless one observes this from position [3] wherein "wrong" is not really the correct way to see it.
Both positions in their own ways are "not totally correct". Those in either position see that the other is 'wrong' and that they are 'right', yet position [3] see that neither position is correct, but both have correct things within them.

Re: The Next Phase [Afterlife] these beliefs will be played out according to the expectations [and other properties] of those in both positions, and this is a loving and just manner n which The Creator allows us each to learn [eventually] who we actually are, rather than who we believe we actually are.
This is semantics. My son takes a math test. One question is 2+2=?. He puts 5 as the answer. Position [1] says he is right, the answer is 5. Position [2] says he is wrong, the answer is 3. Position [3] says that the answer is 4, but allows that position [1] and position [2] are not entirely wrong in that my son (and his friend, Jimmy who answered the question as 3) experienced this untruth as real before realizing that the answer was actually 4. That's what your view sounds like to me. Unintentional semantics. Position [3] says position [1] and position [2] are wrong.
William wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:02 pmEvidence given regarding the many stories of folk experiencing hells show that - for the most part there are no Angels involved in the experience. People just end up there. And they are hellish experiences but not one I have read is like another, except in that many share the same - they call out to Jesus and Jesus appears and assists them out of their terrible situation.
The experiences are unique to the individual and when coupled with evidence which is reported by those who are well practiced in the ability to surf the astral planes as observers, the reports are the same. The properties of the astral have it that what an individual believes as well as the state of the individuals overall demeanor have everything to do with creating said experiences for themselves.
Practitioners know this for themselves. They are aware of their thoughts and do not allow those thoughts to be such that bad experiences are manifested.
This seems to contradict. Are these NDEs undergoing the same experiences or is it different for different people because it is based on their own beliefs and demeanor (which differ between them)? Obviously, practitioners will agree because they hold the belief to begin with, just like Christians who believe in [1] will all agree. But NDEs will disagree. There are other theories as to what is going on in these experiences which disagree.

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 #145

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #144]
Yes. One can explain how Santa Claus works although he isn't real.
In the Astral Realm there are sightings of him, as there are also sightings of Jesus and God.

This because, the nature of the next phase allows it to be the case. Individuals create what they expect re their beliefs.
What happens to the Spirit part when the body part dies?
This was one of the things I was undecided on. Currently, I think either (1) the spirit is temporarily on its own (so to speak) but that it isn't fully human at that point and will be reunited with a body for the rest of eternity or (2) what seems like a break for us (that time passes between, say, my grandmother's death and the new heavens and the new earth) isn't experienced as a break (by Grandma). After she died, she immediately experiences the resurrection, the judgment, the new heavens and the new earth, as though no time had passed. I haven't given this question a ton of study and thought, though.
Well it is fundamental to our discussion and without this knowledge, how can you rationally argue against [3]?
I'm saying that there are different kinds of persons: divine persons, angelic persons, human persons.
Therein you are identifying through the expectation you will encounter forms [and there accompanying attributes] in the next phase which you refer to as 'persons' and [3] does not argue otherwise. [3] recognizes that these forms are worn by Spirits, but are not what the Spirits are.
And 'angel' is what? It is whatever your expectations of it are - what you expect to see an 'angel' to look like.
But a Spirit is best not identified as the form...and [3] understand this... "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." sometimes form is worn to deceive those who do not understand that the Spirit is not the form it wears...

So sure - you are saying that there are different kinds of persons. As I have explained regarding that. A 'person' is simply the data of experience. It is no more real than the form in relation to Spirit. No more real than a character in a book is the same as a character who once existed...

Post #137 "The personality formed is done so based upon this ignorance. This lack of knowing.
As the Spirit becomes knowledgeable, the personality adjusts accordingly. One understands that one is the receptacle of the data of experience related to ones life within human form and this understanding translates into ideas which surpass those derived from ignorance.

The body eventually dies and the Spirit then moves into the next phase experience and takes with it, all the data of experience that formed said personality.

That data itself is not the ‘person’ – it is simply an image of the personality which dominated the position of “I AM”. All subsequent beliefs and expectations, underlying issues, general attitude of that personality is saved in the memory [soul] of the Spirit which experienced it."

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 #146

Post by William »

Some questions I asked you regarding your arguments which you have yet to answer.
your argument: wrote: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.
Q: Is The Creator not "Life"? Something other than living? What do you believe?

Q: 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]

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 #147

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #145]
In the sense I'm talking about theism is more complex than naturalism. All else being equal, that favors naturalism. Yet, all else isn't equal. I think there are numerous arguments that point to the truth of theism over naturalism. In this same sense, my theistic worldview is simpler than your worldview. All else being equal, that favors my theistic worldview.
Naturalism is emergence theory and this is mixed with [1]&[2] regarding self identifying with the form.
To a naturalist, theists arguing for some outside explanation is surplus to requirement, which appears to be what you are arguing in relation to [3] - as [1]&[2] are the 'better' positions to hold for theists because [3] is surplus to requirement.
[3] moves away from that because the explanations don't align with the experience.
As an example, I have shared my OOBEs with those in positions [1]&[2] and have received explanations which range from "brain disfunction" to "Evil Spirits deceiving me" - neither of which align with the actual experiences had.
Therefore - logically - one has to move beyond the range of those explanations. Ultimately this requires having faith in oneself in relation to ones relationship with "The Creator".
In the case of [3] "oneself" is identified as "Spirit" which is identified as "an aspect of The Creators Consciousness". The trust is not bound within the idea that there is the one and there is the other. But that the one is the other and therefore can be trusted.
The other logical option is that the alternatives are defeaters for your interpretation of your experiences.
Accusing people who have and who share their alternate experiences, of being "brain damaged" or under the influence of 'evil spirits' does not in itself defeat one's own explanation of said experiences.
At best, they are equally valid as explanations, but ultimately the individual Spirit gets to decide for their self.
However, there is no 'at best' when others argue for those explanations based upon ignorance rather than experience, and also to note, those who offer such arguments are unlikely to want to have [ask for] such experiences for themselves if they already believe such are a matter of brain damage or evil spirits.

Therefore such arguments are not the equal of, let alone 'defeaters' of ideas which derive from those who do have such experiences.
Yes, but when those in position [3] know and have no problem in seeing where [1] & [2] are placed within [3], what those in position [3] are doing is changing what [1] and [2] are, in order to fit it in. Thus, the evidence that positions [1], [2], and [3] are not aligned and thus lack solid consensus agree upon. So, if [1] and [2] not being aligned is reason to reject both as untrue, then it is also reason to reject [3], and any view on the subject one could think of, as untrue.
Of course. If you wish to reject all three as untrue, then that is your prerogative. [3] is not saying [1]&[2] are untrue. They are not rejected as untrue in the slightest. [3] is not rejecting anything. [1]&[2] are, as can be seen by your argument. Lets us be clear about this. It is YOU who are arguing that [3] is saying [1]&[2] are untrue. You have yet to show why. I will continue to argue that position [3] is saying [1]&[2] are incomplete. There is no judgement attached to that observation. As you wrote;
In the way I'm using it incomplete beliefs are still false beliefs.


This is because you come from positions [1]&/or[2] and those are positions held by the judgmental.
You are then attempting to frame position [3] as a judgmental position, which is a form of Psychological Projection...so yes..."in the way you are using it", "incomplete beliefs" are still "false beliefs".
But that - as has been said - is not the way in which those in position [3] are using it.
The way around this conflict is for you to learn to try and understand without superimposing your own attitude regarding incomplete beliefs as being equal to 'false beliefs'.
I know I have mentioned this dynamic in the past with you.
Position [3] says position [1] and position [2] are wrong.
No. Those in positions [1]&[2] interpret "[3] says [1]&[2] are 'wrong'". This is done because of the filters used by those in positions [1]&[2]. Until you can appreciate the significance of that dynamic, you are simply creating a strawman and arguing against that. I will continue to attempt to guide you beyond that by reminding you that position [3] is a position outside the Realm of Judgement.
Therefore [3] observes without judgement. [Thus incomplete knowledge does not = "false" belief.]

Obviously, practitioners will agree because they hold the belief to begin with,...
AS I have already argued - it is not belief-based but knowledge based. Christians in positions [1]&[2] can and have experienced these things but are not aware [do not have the knowledge] that they are the ones creating the experience for themselves.

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 #148

Post by The Tanager »

1. Our view and supports
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:12 pm
Can one explain how something works if it isn't true?
Yes. One can explain how Santa Claus works although he isn't real.
In the Astral Realm there are sightings of him, as there are also sightings of Jesus and God.

This because, the nature of the next phase allows it to be the case. Individuals create what they expect re their beliefs.
If everything is real/true, then, of course, one can't explain how something that isn't true works. But now you have the burden of establishing that everything is real/true. If not, then my critique remains. That critique being that sometimes you explain what your view is when I ask for support for it being true. I'm not sure it's worth pursuing, though, because, at times, you do offer support for your view being true and we are discussing those attempts.
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:12 pm
This was one of the things I was undecided on. Currently, I think either (1) the spirit is temporarily on its own (so to speak) but that it isn't fully human at that point and will be reunited with a body for the rest of eternity or (2) what seems like a break for us (that time passes between, say, my grandmother's death and the new heavens and the new earth) isn't experienced as a break (by Grandma). After she died, she immediately experiences the resurrection, the judgment, the new heavens and the new earth, as though no time had passed. I haven't given this question a ton of study and thought, though.
Well it is fundamental to our discussion and without this knowledge, how can you rationally argue against [3]?
The rationality of your view has nothing to do with this uncertainty. I think (for the reasons and critiques I've already offered) both of these options are more reasonable than your view, both in what the Biblical picture is as well as the evidence outside of the Bible.



2. Questions about my view
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:12 pmTherein you are identifying through the expectation you will encounter forms [and there accompanying attributes] in the next phase which you refer to as 'persons' and [3] does not argue otherwise.
In post 63, you said position [1] was in conflict with the idea that the Eternal Creator was a person in its own right. It's not. 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?
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:12 pmSo sure - you are saying that there are different kinds of persons. As I have explained regarding that. A 'person' is simply the data of experience. It is no more real than the form in relation to Spirit. No more real than a character in a book is the same as a character who once existed...
I know you think that. I'm more interested in why I should think that is true.



3. Your view and the Bible
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 4:38 pmSome questions I asked you regarding your arguments which you have yet to answer.
your argument: wrote: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.
Q: Is The Creator not "Life"? Something other than living? What do you believe?

Q: 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]
I said why I didn't respond to that yet, at the bottom of post 143. I'll say it again:

Okay, so this is what I'm hearing here from you. Correct me if I'm wrong. The Bible doesn't say [3] is true. It works off of [1] or [2] being true in order to slowly bring these people into a belief that [3] is true. Once one accepts [3] is true, then one can read that view back into Biblical passages and get a fuller picture than the verses themselves tell. Is this what you are saying? If so, then we don't need to address specific Biblical verses. If not, then I will respond to your comments on the Biblical passages.

If what I said there is an accurate understanding of your view, then there is no point for us to talk interpretation of the Bible because you will have agreed that your view isn't directly taught by the passages you offered in support. Instead, you would be saying that position [3] fills out by adding to the picture directly given to us in the Bible since the original audience wasn't ready yet to hear the truth of position [3].

You may think this inaccurate regarding your belief. That's fine. Some of what you said previously will not make sense to me, but all you have to do is say that, no, you do think those passages directly teach your view. I am very open to having misunderstood you there. If this is the case, then I will address everything you wrote in response to specific Biblical passages, including the two above questions.

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 #149

Post by The Tanager »

4. Your view and Beyond the Bible
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 7:02 pmTo a naturalist, theists arguing for some outside explanation is surplus to requirement, which appears to be what you are arguing in relation to [3] - as [1]&[2] are the 'better' positions to hold for theists because [3] is surplus to requirement.
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.
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 7:02 pmAccusing people who have and who share their alternate experiences, of being "brain damaged" or under the influence of 'evil spirits' does not in itself defeat one's own explanation of said experiences.
At best, they are equally valid as explanations, but ultimately the individual Spirit gets to decide for their self.
However, there is no 'at best' when others argue for those explanations based upon ignorance rather than experience, and also to note, those who offer such arguments are unlikely to want to have [ask for] such experiences for themselves if they already believe such are a matter of brain damage or evil spirits.

Therefore such arguments are not the equal of, let alone 'defeaters' of ideas which derive from those who do have such experiences.
I didn't say the act of people saying the alternatives are the case defeats your view. You said the logical option was to believe your own experience. I said that wasn't the only logical option, even if your understanding ended up being truth. It's logically possible that they are right and you are wrong.

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.
William wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 7:02 pmIf you wish to reject all three as untrue, then that is your prerogative. [3] is not saying [1]&[2] are untrue. They are not rejected as untrue in the slightest. [3] is not rejecting anything. [1]&[2] are, as can be seen by your argument. Lets us be clear about this. It is YOU who are arguing that [3] is saying [1]&[2] are untrue. You have yet to show why. I will continue to argue that position [3] is saying [1]&[2] are incomplete.
I've been clear that I am arguing it and you are rejecting my claim. I've given why I think this is the case more than once. I'll put it another way. Position [3] changes [1] from asserting something like "our spirit enters heaven with the Creator for eternity" to [1'] asserting something like "our spirit creates a temporary experience where it thinks it is a spirit entering heaven with the Creator for eternity but that isn't what really is happening because it's not eternal and this God is just a projection of one's own beliefs that will need to be shed and replaced with the truth." If [1'] is true, then [1] is false. Those in position [3] believe something like [1'] is true and that [1] is false.

You did not respond to the following, as far as I could see:

1. Why can't the will be of the spirit-body composite? Why is it only of the body or only of the Spirit?

2a. What is your evidence for position [3] being the oldest and most suppressed view?
2b. If you can answer (2a), then why does something being recorded as the oldest view and the most suppressed view by others mean it is true?

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 #150

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #149]
But now you have the burden of establishing that everything is real/true.
What 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?
I think (for the reasons and critiques I've already offered) both of these options are more reasonable than your view, both in what the Biblical picture is as well as the evidence outside of the Bible.
Perhaps 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.
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]...
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.
So sure - you are saying that there are different kinds of persons. As I have explained regarding that. A 'person' is simply the data of experience. It is no more real than the form in relation to Spirit. No more real than a character in a book is the same as a character who once existed...
I know you think that. I'm more interested in why I should think that is true.
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.
If what I said there is an accurate understanding of your view, then there is no point for us to talk interpretation of the Bible because you will have agreed that your view isn't directly taught by the passages you offered in support. Instead, you would be saying that position [3] fills out by adding to the picture directly given to us in the Bible since the original audience wasn't ready yet to hear the truth of position [3].
You 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. The interpretation that The Creators Breath is Life [Spirit] within the form [human in this case] is an acceptable one. You challenged that by writing;

"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."

Rather than branching away on that tangent, I thought I would simply ask you that if this was not the correct interpretation then "Is The Creator not "Life"?" "Something other than living?" because - if not - and you gave your reasons why - then we could agree that my interpretation was incorrect.

Of course, we both know that The Creator IS Life. - so your answer would have to be "Yes The Creator is Life", and "Yes - The Creator Lives", and therefore, "Yes William, your interpretation is legitimate."

Instead you have attempted to draw the discussion into a tangent

Post Reply