The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

[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]?

[Eloi]

As for what can be considered "physical", "real", etc., what the Bible says about the spirit world can help you understand:

although in our physical dimension it is impossible to see a spirit and it is difficult to understand how many spirits can coexist within the body of a single person and express themselves as if it were a single individual (Mark 5: 1-20), the Bible ALSO tells us that up there all of them are distinguishable from each other and communicate with each other (Job 1,2).

Scripture speaks of languages of angels and about conversations between spiritual beings (1 Cor. 13:1) AND families/kinds of spirits (Mark 9:29; Eph. 3:14,15). So they are individuals with real existence who live in the heavens and here on earth their field of action is very different from the material that characterizes our human nature.

Heb. 12:22 But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels 23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect, 24 and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood.

There is absolutely nothing within a human that can survive death as a conscious entity and live as an individual somewhere. Human beings were not created to live in a non-material world, where there is nothing to support their existence.

Psal. 115:14 Jehovah will give you an increase,
To you and your children.
15 May you be blessed by Jehovah,
The Maker of heaven and earth.
16 As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah,
But the earth he has given to the sons of men.
17 The dead do not praise Jah;
Nor do any who go down into the silence of death.

[William]

[Replying to Eloi in post #212]

As for what can be considered "physical", "real", etc., what the Bible says about the spirit world can help you understand:

although in our physical dimension it is impossible to see a spirit and it is difficult to understand how many spirits can coexist within the body of a single person and express themselves as if it were a single individual (Mark 5: 1-20),

That is quite the story.
Questions which come to mind are:

1: Why - in order to the Spirits to be cast out of one individual, to they require the death [by drowning] of 2000 pigs in order for this to happen?

2: Do all people possess multitudes of 'Spirits' who 'speak as one'?

3: Why did Jesus not know he was dealing with a 'legion of spirits' to begin with, as he simply addressed the Spirit [singular] as "unclean" and then asked the spirit for a name and was told 'we are many' [so the one spirit was speaking on behalf of the many].

4: What did the legion mean by saying they did not want to be sent away 'out of the country'?

There are other questions as well, but these will suffice for now.

the Bible ALSO tells us that up there all of them are distinguishable from each other and communicate with each other (Job 1,2).

Ah yes - the old "Satan meets God" story...

Scripture speaks of languages of angels and about conversations between spiritual beings (1 Cor. 13:1)

Yes - one would wonder what this language is which ghosts use to communicate with...the author appears to use poetry to get a more mundane point across...

AND families/kinds of spirits Mark 9:29

more devil-ghosts...

Eph. 3:14,15 - this is evidently calling humans 'spirit' as well, which ties in with [3].

[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.

So they are individuals with real existence who live in the heavens and here on earth their field of action is very different from the material that characterizes our human nature.

Yes - [3] (and [1]) are positions which hold this view.

There is absolutely nothing within a human that can survive death as a conscious entity and live as an individual somewhere. Human beings were not created to live in a non-material world, where there is nothing to support their existence.

So you have been told [or tell yourself].
However, my own personal experience - and the experiences of very many others leads me to conclude that you are mistaken in that belief - which appears to be position [2].

[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.

Clearly [and has been pointed out in posts in this thread] the bible is a conglomerate of different authors beliefs - not all of which align with each other but all of which can be categorized in one of the three listed position in the OP.

Have you read the whole thread?

[Eloi]

Yeah, that is quite a story ... I have never read an evolutionary scientist trying to explain the existence of an invisible entity that survives human death through evolution.

[William]

Yeah, that is quite a story ... I have never read an evolutionary scientist trying to explain the existence of an invisible entity that survives human death through evolution.

I do not understand the relevance of this comment re the OP subject...are you saying that this is the position you hold - the same position as an "evolutionary scientist"?

[Eloi]

Yeah, that is quite a story ... I have never read an evolutionary scientist trying to explain the existence of an invisible entity that survives human death through evolution.

I do not understand the relevance of this comment re the OP subject...are you saying that this is the position you hold - the same position as an "evolutionary scientist"?

Now we are too: I don't know what your comment has to do with mine either.

In this subforum it is assumed that what the Bible says is true. It is your comments that do not fit over here.

[William]

Yeah, that is quite a story ... I have never read an evolutionary scientist trying to explain the existence of an invisible entity that survives human death through evolution.

I do not understand the relevance of this comment re the OP subject...are you saying that this is the position you hold - the same position as an "evolutionary scientist"?

Now we are too: I don't know what your comment has to do with mine either.

In this subforum it is assumed that what the Bible says is true. It is your comments that do not fit over here.

If you think so, you can complain to the moderators and ask them to remove this thread from this forum. I think you will discover that you are incorrect in your assessment.

Meantime, best that you stick to the thread subject and read the contents with an open mind - a mind set on sorting wheat from chaff...

[Eloi]

(...)

If you think so, you can complain to the moderators and ask them to remove this thread from this forum. I think you will discover that you are incorrect in your assessment.

Meantime, best that you stick to the thread subject and read the contents with an open mind - a mind set on sorting wheat from chaff...

If you do think my comments have nothing to do with the topic, you can complain to the Mods ...

I am sure that the rest of readers interested in what the Bible says will understand the relationship between what I post and the main topic or other threads that emerge from it during the development of the whole topic.

My intention in participating in the forum is not for entertainment because I have nothing else to do, so I do not feed dialogues that do not lead to anything. I wish you a good day.

[William]

[Replying to Eloi in post #218]

Well now you have that declaration out of the way, how about you participate in this thread as intended - do you have anything to say about my critique of you posts, to do with biblical interpretation and thread topic?

At present, what you have contributed shows that your beliefs are closest to position [2]

[2] A "Person" is 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.

Would that be a fair assessment on my part?

[The Tanager]

What is 'ultimate' reality? Are you speaking about non temporal? Are you speaking of permanence?

I’m talking about distinct, real substances that reality is made of. Some people believe everything is physical. They believe the mind is an illusion produced by the physical brain. Some people believe everything is non-physical. They believe the physical world is really just an illusion or idea in some other being’s mind. I’m saying there are irreducible physical things and irreducible non-physical things that make up reality.

I am not convinced that a plastic plant can be called a real plant. Do you mean that it can look real but once examined closely can be seen to be fake?

I’m saying let’s just agree that plastic plants are real plants for the sake of the point of the analogy (which has nothing to do with whether plastic plants could really be considered real or not). Real plants can be made of plastic or biological matter. Biological plants aren’t really plastic plants in disguise or vice-versa. I’m saying physical and non-physical things are both real and distinct from each other; they aren’t modes of the other.

They could directly affect the recipient’s senses.

This is more plausible. The non material [Consciousness (of the) Mind] creates temporary [and seemingly solid] environments which can be experienced by said Consciousness, as real.
I mentioned this in prior posts.
Essentially - if this is the case - then we have it backwards as to what 'real' is. It is not the physical, but the non physical - it is not the creation but the mind in which the creation is projected into.

Here you are addressing a second issue: are there two types of ultimate substances in reality or not? We are addressing a different issue: if there were two types of ultimate substances in reality, how would one communicate with the other.

That a non-physical being could communicate through directly manipulating the physical senses without having a physical “shell” that impresses itself upon the physical senses (for instance, God’s voice being audibly heard by a person although God does not have physical vocal chords like we do producing the sounds) does not mean that the non-physical alone is real. God’s voice

So would you agree then that these are two different processes which can produce the same outcome...?

Yes.

I don't. Abuse is abuse. Some folk do have a type of understanding that some abuse is worse than other abuse. I was just asking in order to ascertain whether you are one of those folk, since you brought it into the argument.

Okay. So, do you think child abuse is evil, good, or neither?

Okay...so the parent figure of the Garden story cursed the children figures - and throughout the old testament there is reference to the entity [parent figure] bringing both good and evil onto humans [children figures] and the new testament is about how the evil is ultimately replaced by good.
You are a believer in this are you not?

I believe the parent figure gives consequences to the children figures out of love, for their own good. God brings good and allows evil to occur to the children figures. The New Testament is about recreating damaged nature and people, resulting in good rather than evil being chosen by them and being done to them.

How do you explain that if a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good, this does not mean that the evil action was ever good?

Are you saying that it is still evil action which was committed?

It would be. I don’t think God brings an evil action onto Adam and Eve. What is the evil action?

I used a different example because I was trying to understand what you meant by something being legitimate. That your context was NDE OOBE Astral experiences was not clear to me. I didn’t know that is what “theist thinking wrought through individual experiences” meant.

Do you somehow think that theist thinking derives solely from human imagination in which so-called "alternate experience" is just "the brain doing it"?

Not all theist thinking includes the context of NDE OOBE astral experiences. I have “theist thinking wrought through individual experiences” that aren’t astral.

If so, then can you (1) show why NDE OOBE (if they exist) being real logically necessitates all of reality being non-physical and (2) show why NDE OOBE provide us with truth about reality.

It tickles me when theists use arguments which are usually coming from the non-theist sectors.
Non-theists are essentially asking to be shown that 'God' exists, in order that they then might consider it true.

What is your answer to such a request?

and;

If you have such an answer, what would that answer look like in regard to your request for me to 'show you' these thing about NDE OOBE.

My answer to a theist is for that theist to investigate. You have a God. You have the ability through prayer to ask things of that God. The God has the [claimed] ability to answer prayers.

Therefore "Ask and you shall receive" You want evidence? Ask that which can provide said evidence of alternate experience of non-physical reality. The non-physical reality can hear you and respond to your request to be 'shown'.

There is nothing wrong with asking for reasons to consider something to be true, whether God’s existence, NDE OOBE, biological theories, etc. I share my reasons for the beliefs I have, which go beyond personal experience but do include them. You do as well. You have shared your reasoning on various issues. It’s seemingly only when personal experience is all you have that you respond with something like this. That’s fine. I have and will continue to pray for and be open to God showing Himself to me in any way He will. I do think reasoning and personal experience need to go hand in hand. Just because I experience a water source ahead of me in the desert doesn’t mean there is one there.

[Ataraxia]

I haven't read all 22 pages of this thread to know if this has come up already, but one thing that stood out to me on the OP is that the 3 proposed points are all distinctly Greek dualistic influences on Christianity. The ancient Hebrews did not have any well-developed ideas about dualism, which is reflected in the way that the OT speaks of death. The injection of Hellenism following Alexander the Great's conquests corresponds with Jewish people writing more about afterlife and in increasingly more dualistic terms (although even today Judaism still has little to say on the subject). But a division on the issue seems to permeate the NT. For example, a moderately strong case can be made from the Bible that no soul or spirit leaves your body when you die. That your only hope is the resurrection of your physical body. This is what Paul directly argues in 1 Cor 15. But elsewhere he writes about [imagining?] his spirit leaving his body and going up to heaven. Paul was a thoroughly Hellenistic Jew (wrote in Greek, was a Roman citizen, etc). So it's not surprising that he reflects both the Hebrew and the Greek afterlife ideas.