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]

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.

The very first thing to assume is that the Bible IS NOT the teaching of humans, but rather the teaching of Jehovah so that humans can have a notion of the truth and be guided by it and rectify their wrong views.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

This principle is applicable to any matter that is related to the worship of the God of the Bible and of which Jesus Christ and his followers spoke. It is applicable to the state of the dead, to the identity of God, to the origin of humanity, to the future of the planet and human beings, to the lives of people in the heavens, etc. A person who is governed by that principle, as did Jesus himself (John 17:17), does not speculate when Scripture clearly teaches something, does not make excuses for not rectifying his wrong ideas if the Bible teaches something different; He does not use the Bible to justify religious lies that it refutes and denies, NOR does he believe that the Bible has contradictions or that it supports many contradictory interpretations on the same issue at the same time.

A person who assumes the Bible as the final word on any matter it includes, tries to know exactly what Scripture says, studying the matter very carefully to find out what is misunderstood when there appears to be some contradiction or confusion.

On whether something conscious survives death, Scripture is clear:

Ps. 146: 4 His spirit of him goes out, he returns to the ground;
On that very day his thoughts of him perish.

No definitive truth on an issue, such as the condition of dead people, would change from that given to Jehovah's servants of old through the inspired words of the prophets, to which it would give the same spirit influencing Christians in the first century. That would be incongruous, inconsistent, and obviously that IS NOT what a truthfully God would do when speaking to humans to know the truth.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures, under the inspiration of the same holy spirit that inspired the pre-Christian scriptures, a new hope is offered to the anointed Christians of that time specifically: the possibility to be resurrected in spirit form to join Jesus in heaven and become Jehovah's kings and priests together with the Christ. This hope was new in history, but it does not in any way contradict the belief of the unconscious state of the dead, since the anointed brothers of Christ in the first century had to die and be unconscious for some time (John 6:39,40) to be later resurrected in spirit and taken up to heaven (1 Thess. 4:15-18; 1 Cor. 15:51,52).

There is no such thing as different "interpretations" endorsed by the Scriptures. What there are are different hopes based on the same teachings: unconscious dead that are resurrected in spirit to live in heaven, while other unconscious dead will be resurrected in bodies of flesh to live on earth.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #220]

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.

Can you give examples?

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.

What evidence do you have to support that physical and non-physical things are both real and distinct from each other?
Do you mean it in the way light and darkness are distinct from one another?
If so, are you therefore concluding that these are not of the same system?
Obviously they are, so just because things can be distinguished as 'different' does not conclude that they must be of distinctly different systems.

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.

Let me ask you this. Is the Mind of The Creator an 'ultimate substance'?

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.

From the biblical descriptions where this voice is mentioned in action, the voice is audible but comes from an invisible source.
Do you think that Jesus only heard The Creators Voice in this manner?
Do you think when Tammy claims she hears The Lords Voice, that it is an audible sound from an external source?
Do you think that this Universe would exist [be real] independent of The Creators Consciousness? If so, how would you explain its existence?

That is why I say that the actual real [ultimate substance as you put it] is the eternal - the permanent, not the temporal. That is what I meant when I wrote "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."

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

Yes.

Is this why you believe they are independent processes which require The Creator is separate from The Creation?

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?

I think that all abuse is the result of ignorance, sometimes willful ignorance. I do not view the world in terms of 'good' 'evil' or 'neither good nor evil', because I note that those who do view the world in those terms, are not all in agreeance and that which they label as such, is not static but ebbs and flows depending upon social beliefs.
It is one reason why I am an Agnostic Theist.

In relation to this thread subject;

Someone who has experienced abuse as a child might grow to resent the persons whom they were abused by and want justice for the evil [as they see it] that was done to them. Positions;

[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.

Allow for this to happen within the victims ongoing experience, if indeed no Justice was forthcoming in this current phase, or even if Justice was meted but the victim still believes it wasn't enough and wants more.

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.

This has to be the case, since here we are within a particular universe which - even if everyone behaved 'good' would still threaten harm [often seen as 'evil' by those who view the world in such terms] so wherein theism insists the existence of a Creator, this has to be accounted for.
That is why there is this [so-called] "Problem of Evil" - separating The Creator from the Creation does not solve said problem, even that religion has attempted to use the belief in an effort do do so.

God brings good and allows evil to occur to the children figures.

Such is the way of biblical interpretation.
You word it differently than;
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is yet another example of trying to separate The Creator from The Creation...one has to tweak the wording in order to declare The Creator "brings" good and "allows" evil to occur to the children figures.

In the case of The Garden Story, we see clearly that both the forbidden fruit tree and The Serpent are allowed to be in the garden and acknowledge that The Creator [in that story] actually created those things and these things were allowed to be in harms way [re the children figures] ...so rather than see such a character as a type of child-abuser, one reconstructs it in order that the Creator cannot be said to be abusive to children. This is possible the essential reason why some religions sought to separate The Creator from The Creation.

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.

What is the evil action?

I don’t think God brings an evil action onto Adam and Eve.

Why don't you think that the God didn't bring an evil action?

What is the evil action?

How is one to know?

If the premise is that IF a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good for the child, this still does not mean that the evil action was ever good THEN is the act of placing the children in harms way never a good action?

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

And would it be right for another to be expected to accept your particular “theist thinking wrought through individual experiences” as legitimate theist thinking?
And would it also be right for another theist to expect the same in return?

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.

"Something like this" is the best way to respond to such requests for evidence of the alternate kind. It is a step in the right direction as it honors another's own will to know, and personal experience is the best way to find out.
The added advantage a theist has is where they may have an Entity in which they believe in, and have experienced already, answers to their prayers from said Entity, thus they know that works...so if you really want to know, ask that which has the power to show you.

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.

Especially if that water source turns out to be a "god" who cannot show you anything of the sort...but what of that?

The point is, if you are open, then ask that which has the power to show you.

Ask for your own OOBE. Then you will join the multitude of ones who now know, through personal experience.

If you don't want to know, then you won't ever ask.

Asking me to grant you that will not get you anywhere...but neither will it prove that my experiences are not legitimate, or that my position [3] is incorrect.
That is why I point you in a direction which at least has the potential to get you the evidence you are asking for.

Meantime, here is something connected to our conversation - it involves an invisible entity who is just heard as a 'voice' and tells Manu Iti a story, at the Fireside...

Re: Musing on "The Real"

[The Tanager]

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.

Can you give examples?

Examples of what I think are physical and non-physical things that make up reality? God and angels are non-physical; animals, planets, plants are physical things.

What evidence do you have to support that physical and non-physical things are both real and distinct from each other?

I think it is a universal human intuition that this is the case. As soon as we can note such a distinction, our initial thoughts are that it is a true distinction. We don’t see a tree and think that that we and that tree exists in the imagination of some other non-physical being. We only turn to forms of idealism through philosophical shifts in thinking (however they come about). That alone doesn’t mean it is true, but I believe that universal human intuitions are more rational to believe than their alternatives until some argument comes in to support the alternative over the universal intuition.

Now, the reason this came up in our discussion was because I said that I would agree with you that creatio ex nihilo was illogical if you could show all of reality is non-physical. What evidence do you have to support that only the non-physical is real, in the sense spoken of above.

Do you mean it in the way light and darkness are distinct from one another?

I don’t think darkness is a “thing” in the same way light is. Darkness is the absence of light. Just like a hole is the absence of the material the wall is made out of, rather than any positive existence itself. I believe physical and non-physical “substances” both positively exist like a wall does, rather than the non-physical simply being an absence of physical substance. I would call the absence of physical (or non-physical substance, for that matter, pun intended) “nothing”.

If so, are you therefore concluding that these are not of the same system?
Obviously they are, so just because things can be distinguished as 'different' does not conclude that they must be of distinctly different systems.

I don’t know what you mean by being (or not being) “of the same system”.

Let me ask you this. Is the Mind of The Creator an 'ultimate substance'?

I think that the Creator, whose ‘ultimate substance’ is non-physical, has a mind. I don’t separate the Creator from His mind.

From the biblical descriptions where this voice is mentioned in action, the voice is audible but comes from an invisible source.
Do you think that Jesus only heard The Creators Voice in this manner?

No. I think the Father communicated with Jesus through His thoughts, i.e., His mind, i.e., His spirit, for the most part.

Do you think when Tammy claims she hears The Lords Voice, that it is an audible sound from an external source?

I have no idea about that. I haven’t asked Tammy or remember reading what Tammy claims there.

Do you think that this Universe would exist [be real] independent of The Creators Consciousness? If so, how would you explain its existence?

No, I think it is dependent on God’s thoughts.

That is why I say that the actual real [ultimate substance as you put it] is the eternal - the permanent, not the temporal. That is what I meant when I wrote "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."

So, by ‘real’ you mean what I would call ‘necessary’ as opposed to ‘contingent’? We aren’t real/necessary because our existence is dependent on another? If so, then we agree.

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

Yes.

Is this why you believe they are independent processes which require The Creator is separate from The Creation?

My understanding is that the “processes” being talked about here are, as examples:

(1) my vocal chords producing sound waves received by your ears that you can understand

and

(2) a non-physical being producing sound waves (without the help of physical vocal chords), or even without actually producing sound waves that travel throughout the world, which you can understand

I’m not sure what you mean about these processes requiring separation. I think the Creator and Creation could be the same and you still have the first process. If all is the same, then I don’t think you could really distinguish between a non-physical and physical being.

I think that all abuse is the result of ignorance, sometimes willful ignorance. I do not view the world in terms of 'good' 'evil' or 'neither good nor evil', because I note that those who do view the world in those terms, are not all in agreeance and that which they label as such, is not static but ebbs and flows depending upon social beliefs.

How is ignorance not evil, in your view? What’s the distinction?

This has to be the case, since here we are within a particular universe which - even if everyone behaved 'good' would still threaten harm [often seen as 'evil' by those who view the world in such terms] so wherein theism insists the existence of a Creator, this has to be accounted for.

I don’t see harm and evil as synonyms.

That is why there is this [so-called] "Problem of Evil" - separating The Creator from the Creation does not solve said problem, even that religion has attempted to use the belief in an effort do do so.

If you want to provide your reasoning for why it doesn’t solve the problem of evil, then I could share my thoughts on why I disagree.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is yet another example of trying to separate The Creator from The Creation...one has to tweak the wording in order to declare The Creator "brings" good and "allows" evil to occur to the children figures.

And I think you are tweaking the meaning from what the original words were intended to mean. If you want to offer the support for your interpretation (the reason behind using the english “evil” rather than a different english word) then do so and I will offer my responses to that and my own positive case for why the word isn’t equivalent to what we mean by ‘evil’. Simply using one translation that uses that word and asserting that I’m tweaking the intended wording has no worth.

In the case of The Garden Story, we see clearly that both the forbidden fruit tree and The Serpent are allowed to be in the garden and acknowledge that The Creator [in that story] actually created those things and these things were allowed to be in harms way [re the children figures] ...so rather than see such a character as a type of child-abuser, one reconstructs it in order that the Creator cannot be said to be abusive to children. This is possible the essential reason why some religions sought to separate The Creator from The Creation.

Using rhetoric as though your interpretation is obvious is not support for your view. Makethe case for your interpretation instead. Yes, God created the tree, created the Serpent, commanded them to not eat of that tree, allowing humans to make a bad decision that would harm them and others. Now, make the argument that leads to your conclusion that God is, therefore, evil.

If the premise is that IF a parent-figure brings evil action onto a child-figure but the consequence of the action proves to be ultimately good for the child, this still does not mean that the evil action was ever good THEN is the act of placing the children in harms way never a good action?

Performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things. I don’t think putting Adam and Eve in harm’s way, in the way God does in Genesis, was an evil action, even though evil came about as a result (in part because those evil consequences didn’t have to result). So, saying God put Adam and Eve in harm’s way is not sufficient for the claim that God performed an evil action. If you think it is evil, then show why it is evil.

And would it be right for another to be expected to accept your particular “theist thinking wrought through individual experiences” as legitimate theist thinking?
And would it also be right for another theist to expect the same in return?

It is right for them to consider it as legitimately the thinking of a theist and I do the same with them but we are talking about what corresponds with reality. I don’t expect them to think my theistic thinking is correct simply because it is my thinking.

The point is, if you are open, then ask that which has the power to show you.

Ask for your own OOBE. Then you will join the multitude of ones who now know, through personal experience.

If you don't want to know, then you won't ever ask.

Why do you think I haven’t asked God for that?

[William]

Why do you think I haven’t asked God for that?

[LINK]

I have spent the last couple of days working on our interactions in this thread, by sorting out the responses in a more conversational manner. I have just finished doing so and am about to read through the results to try and ascertain what process is going on in that.

For now - I suspect that the reason we do not agree has to do with our particular foundational premises as to how The Creator bought the Creation into being.

Neither of us argue that there is NOT a Creator involved.
We both have different views of the nature of The Creator, but I think that these too, can be sourced at that "particular foundational premises as to how The Creator bought the Creation into being."

That is the branching off point and therefore anything we argue from that point will never reach mutual agreement because our premises are fundamentally different...

Even when I used to call myself a Christian, some 35 or so years ago - I never saw the Story of The Garden of Eden as something to take literally. I considered it to be metaphor, and regarded the scientific explanation as the better one, as for how the Universe came into being. As a process so in that, how thr Universe is coming into being.

Because of this, my path branched away from Christianity.

However, my path did not branch off of the atheist position in that regard. I have never been convinced that the process scientific discovery somehow equated to "There is no Creator and we do not exist within a Creation".

I understand that The Garden story is really where Christianity [as an overall belief] has its particular foundational premise as everything to do with those beliefs depend upon that story being true.

In particular, that the actions of the Biblical Jesus are to be believe as literally occurring and that the Resurrection actually happened.

[The promises associated with those things, are secondary.]

For my part - I simply cannot understand how someone such as yourself who demands good logic, could - in all honesty - argue that the Garden Story is a good logical and rational explanation for the Creation [of this Universe - specifically life on Earth] coming into being.

In reviewing and sorting our conversation here in this thread [for we have shared many words in other threads on this Message Board - over 20, 000 words in this thread alone] it seem apparent to me that while there is some benefit to going through that process, the end result will be according to the beginning foundational premise, and the branching will not produce agreement...any more than schism does.

One of the ripple effects of this conversation is that I created the threads;

The Biblical Jesus - John 10:38
and
Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

In the course of our conversation here, in this thread, you mentioned the resurrection;

TT: First, I'm not claiming I 'know' my view is true. I believe it is true. I ultimately believe it is true because of the soundness of the historicity of the Resurrection.

WW: That in itself is something most all other Christians have in common...part of the fundamentals that the rest of belief is built upon and branches off of... part of both [1]&[2]... and for that matter, nothing which would need to be dropped if one were to accept [3] as the better belief to have re the next phase...



TT: I think the only 'reasoning' you've offered for your view is that it is logically possible. I think the reasoning for my beliefs outweighs the mere logical possibility of your view being true.

WW: I suppose that your opinion can be noted here, but I have no memory of your offering support for this assertion...


TT: I'm supposed to offer support for my assertion that I haven't seen you offer any positive view for your support?

Also;

TT: Not true. Do you believe the Earth is spherical? That belief is supported by more than "I think it is true." It can be the same with philosophical beliefs. My beliefs are supported by interpretations of Biblical passages and those passages speaking truth, for me, are ultimately grounded in the truth of Jesus' resurrection.

WW: "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife" have to do with the biblical portions which sort the interpreters into three distinct types.
[3] does not undermine any aspect of Christs mission.

Also:

TT: 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.

WW: Well it is fundamental to our discussion and without this knowledge, how can you rationally argue against [3]?

TT: 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.

WW: 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.

TT: 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).

Also:

TT: If you want me to support my view of creatio ex nihilo rather than you support your view, then we will have to hold a discussion that includes the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the Gospels in recording Jesus' teachings, and Jesus teaching (indirectly) creatio ex nihilo.

WW: Logic tells me that those who argue for such, are doing so [as I have pointed out in past posts] in order to attempt to deal with the problem of evil.
Your argument is forced 'logic' based upon the premise that The Creator is separate from the creation

Also;

TT: I'm definitely not a [2]. Regardless of whether I believed in annihilationism/extermination or a self-inflicted isolated eternal existence, I believe those individuals who aren't a part of Heaven will also be resurrected before their final judgment. Your [2], as worded, rules out the resurrection of "unsaved" individuals.

And I definitely wouldn't be a [3] because I see no good reason whatsoever to believe that any of that is true.

It appears that your categorization is incomplete.

Since you did not support this belief in "the historicity of Jesus' resurrection " I could not connect the dots, and fortunately another Christian on the Message Board [RealworldJack] was making similar noises so I asked him for the supporting evidence, since he too was implying there were facts to be shown re this supposed "historicity of Jesus' resurrection" [that it was an actual event which occurred] - unfortunately he hasn't come up with the evidence so I created those threads in an effort to get to the bottom of this claim...is it faith or fact based...

This seems to be the crux - why Christians cannot accept the truth of scientific discovery on how ["The Creator" in theistic terms] created the Creation...because it somehow contradicts the story of the resurrection, which itself is based upon the belief in story of The Garden [The Fall of Humanity] as being literal. If The resurrection is to be taken literally, then so too must the Garden Story - which just happens to be introduced by the Creation of The Universe story [let it be and it was so - *magic* -creatio ex nihilo]

Would you agree with this summery?

[William]

Another Biblical reference which supports [3].
2 Peter 3:13
“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

It is interesting that "the heavens" are plural - signifying places, rather than a place.

[William]

[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.

William: As you know, my position is [3] and as you know, I expect my next-phase experience to be at the campfire and to have access to all of the Holographic Universes. I expect to have access to different bodies depending upon need/use. I expect to have access to freedom of movement. No one telling me how I should do things. Just as a Spirit of The Creator would have.

Tanager: Yes, I am aware of that. And, in a sense, I agree with this last line.

William: As I mentioned…"The way they were created to be."

Tanager: I also think we will all just be doing the things we want to do freely because of the love spilling out of us, coming from God, of knowing and being known in that loving community, not that we will have to be told what to do.

William: Which is what I get with the campfire and access to all of the Holographic Universes, different bodies depending upon need/use, freedom of movement. No one telling me how I should do things. Just as a Spirit of The Creator would have.

The differences re [3] and of [1]&[2] is in the form.
Not being restricted to the one form.
Also the environment. Not being restricted to the one environment.
Also the community. Not being restricted to the one community.
All a product of the love spilling out of us, as an image of The Creator.

Tanager: If it is left up to us, then what we create is not simply a product of love spilling out of us.

William: It is, if such creations are the product of those who have come to the realization they are and have really, always, been Eternal Spirits - and thus will create accordingly, just as The Eternal Creator, creates accordingly...with love spilling out of It and into the Creations...

Tanager: We simply don't always act out of love, perhaps not usually so.

William: Try believing yourself to being an Eternal Spirit of The Eternal Creator and see how much your view here will naturally change...to a being who always creates through Love.

Tanager: It won't automatically change our actions to loving ones. Whatever one thinks is 'loving' will simply be given divine authority and would no longer be questioned, since one views themself as divine.

William: That of course - goes for all who claim divinity. Who are you, in thinking oneself a Human to know what love and divinity is?

Tanager: If I know anything of love, then it comes from the omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator informing me of it.

William: Whereas I understand it comes from myself as Spirit within Human form as information hardwired into my being, which I forgot the moment I stepped into a Human form and 'became Human'... It is the same declaration with the additional realization that I am the Spirit of omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator informing the 'me' as the illusion of being 'Human', of Love.
A deviation with profound consequence of the divine...[3]
But then, you also believe you are "Spirit" so what is it about "Spirit" that "Human" doesn't trust, and why?

Tanager: I see no reason to believe there is this dichotomy of 'Spirit' and 'Human,' so I see no distrust of the 'Spirit' by the 'Human'.

William: Then there is no logical reason for you to continue rejecting [3]

Tanager: History tells us this. Personal interaction tells us this. Introspection tells us this.

William: Deep introspection unclouded by the filters of belief systems resisting all truth, tells us something to the contrary - but one will never know that until one learns to go that deep...

[William]

[The Tanager]

Even when I used to call myself a Christian, some 35 or so years ago - I never saw the Story of The Garden of Eden as something to take literally. I considered it to be metaphor, and regarded the scientific explanation as the better one, as for how the Universe came into being.

I have come to the conclusion that Genesis is not attempting to give a scientific answer and, therefore, cannot contradict the science.

I understand that The Garden story is really where Christianity [as an overall belief] has its particular foundational premise as everything to do with those beliefs depend upon that story being true.

In particular, that the actions of the Biblical Jesus are to be believe as literally occurring and that the Resurrection actually happened.

I have come to the conclusion that Christianity depends on the Garden story being true but not in the modern sense of “literally true”. The Resurrection is a different story. Not in a special pleading way but simply as a matter of fact. They don’t both have to be the same kind of claim. I think it is clear that the authors of the Canonical Gospels meant the key elements of their accounts of the Resurrection in the modern sense of “literally true”.

For my part - I simply cannot understand how someone such as yourself who demands good logic, could - in all honesty - argue that the Garden Story is a good logical and rational explanation for the Creation [of this Universe - specifically life on Earth] coming into being.

Do you think I view the Garden story as necessarily literally true, in the modern sense of “literally true”?

This seems to be the crux - why Christians cannot accept the truth of scientific discovery on how ["The Creator" in theistic terms] created the Creation...because it somehow contradicts the story of the resurrection, which itself is based upon the belief in story of The Garden [The Fall of Humanity] as being literal.

I don’t think scientific discovery contradicts what is taught in Genesis. Neither does it contradict the Resurrection. What specific contradictions do you see? I know you will think some are obvious and I have an idea on what some of that will be but I want to deal specifically with the contradictions you see and not miss some or add in others that you don’t hold.

If The resurrection is to be taken literally, then so too must the Garden Story - which just happens to be introduced by the Creation of The Universe story [let it be and it was so - *magic* -creatio ex nihilo]

Why? They are different stories written by different people in different styles.

Another Biblical reference which supports [3].
2 Peter 3:13
“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

It is interesting that "the heavens" are plural - signifying places, rather than a place.

How does this support [3] rather than [1] and [2]? Or perhaps you are saying it supports all three? If so, then while it doesn’t contradict [3], I don’t see how it supports it. I don’t see how one would get to [3] from this verse at all.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #229]

I have come to the conclusion that Genesis is not attempting to give a scientific answer and, therefore, cannot contradict the science.

What is Genesis attempting to do then?
I can safety assume that you are aware that many Christians use the biblical story to argue against the science - for example, by contradicting the view that the Earth is literally millions of years old.

Are you saying that our positions are not so different that we could come to agreement?

I have come to the conclusion that Christianity depends on the Garden story being true but not in the modern sense of “literally true”.

I have some recollection that I asked you one time if you believed the story was literally true and that you answered in the affirmative.
Perhaps this was not you, but another member.

The Resurrection is a different story. Not in a special pleading way but simply as a matter of fact.

So you are not a Christian who believes there is a connection between the Garden story and the Resurrection story?

I think it is clear that the authors of the Canonical Gospels meant the key elements of their accounts of the Resurrection in the modern sense of “literally true”.

So am I to understand then that your position on the garden story is different from your position on the resurrection story? One is taken to be literally true and the other not?

Do you think I view the Garden story as necessarily literally true, in the modern sense of “literally true”?

Yes - I have done so up to this point.
It appears now that you do not...

I don’t think scientific discovery contradicts what is taught in Genesis.

Specifically it is the Garden story which contradicts what is taught by science, if one takes it literally, which - apparently you do not.

Neither does it contradict the Resurrection.

Science has yet to show that Jesus rose from the dead?

What specific contradictions do you see? I know you will think some are obvious and I have an idea on what some of that will be but I want to deal specifically with the contradictions you see and not miss some or add in others that you don’t hold.

You said this in the course of our discussion in this thread;

I'm not claiming I 'know' my view is true. I believe it is true. I ultimately believe it is true because of the soundness of the historicity of the Resurrection.

and this;

My beliefs are supported by interpretations of Biblical passages and those passages speaking truth, for me, are ultimately grounded in the truth of Jesus' resurrection.

The contradiction as I saw it - is that you believed the two stories were to be taken literally. Since it appears now that you do not, perhaps there is no contradiction in that.

If The resurrection is to be taken literally, then so too must the Garden Story - which just happens to be introduced by the Creation of The Universe story [let it be and it was so - *magic* -creatio ex nihilo]

Why? They are different stories written by different people in different styles.

So are you saying that you are not a Christian who believes the bible as a whole is a collection of stories which are all related to one another?

2 Peter 3:13
“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

How does this support [3] rather than [1] and [2]?

[1]&[2] have the beliefs that there is only one Heaven. whereas [3] understands that there are many Heavens, and this because individuals create these

I don’t see how one would get to [3] from this verse at all.

[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.

I am confident that I have explained in this thread, in further detail, the individual process of creating the next phase experience based upon those things mentioned.

As such, one can easily enough connect the dots. Individuals create individual creations, thus [for those who create a heavenly environment] these can altogether be referred to as 'Heavens".

[The Tanager]

What is Genesis attempting to do then?

I believe the author of Genesis is trying to reshape our view of who God is and why he made the world and the role of humanity within it.

I can safety assume that you are aware that many Christians use the biblical story to argue against the science - for example, by contradicting the view that the Earth is literally millions of years old.

I am aware and I think they are Biblically wrong as well as scientifically wrong.

Are you saying that our positions are not so different that we could come to agreement?

Probably depends on what issue you are referring to.

I have some recollection that I asked you one time if you believed the story was literally true and that you answered in the affirmative.
Perhaps this was not you, but another member.

Here are some possibilities:

1. Every detail literally happened. For instance, Satan possessed a snake and tempted Eve who tempted Adam to eat the fruit.

2. The author is describing actual, literal events using poetic language. For instance, the humans weren’t actually tempted by a talking snake but were tempted by Satan’s voice, perhaps it wasn’t really eating fruit from a tree.

3. The author is describing true concepts about God by using made-up events. For instance, God gave humans free will but there weren't really two humans, a tree, and a snake in a garden.

4. The author is describing false concepts about God, making everything up. For instance, God doesn’t exist.

I believe (2) is the most reasonable general position to take but every aspect must be taken on its own merit. As to what you are referring to, we were talking about whether Satan really was a snake, I think. I have no problem believing Satan possessed a snake or took the snake’s form (1), or that this is a poetic flourish (2), or that it’s a completely made up way to talk about humans having free will (3). I don’t think it changes the point or undermines anything else about Christianity either way. I would lean towards (1) or (2) over (3).

So you are not a Christian who believes there is a connection between the Garden story and the Resurrection story?

I believe there are connections but not connections in the sense above, where they must both be 1s or both be 2s or whatever number. I think the earliest Christians are clear in that they claimed Jesus literally, bodily resurrected from the dead.

So am I to understand then that your position on the garden story is different from your position on the resurrection story? One is taken to be literally true and the other not?

It depends on what element you are asking about. I think humans were created without sin but with freedom to sin. I think humans literally sinned, rebelling against God. I think humans literally chose to decide good and evil for themselves rather than listening to God. I think a talking snake could have literally spoken to Eve but it could be a poetic description. I don’t think creation literally took six 24 hour periods. There are tons of elements that make up these stories and it’s not all-or-nothing being literally true or not.

Science has yet to show that Jesus rose from the dead?

How could it? This is a historical question.

So are you saying that you are not a Christian who believes the bible as a whole is a collection of stories which are all related to one another?

I do think they are all related to each other but not connected regarding whether each one is literally true (in the modern sense of that term); that isn’t an all-or-nothing kind of thing.

[1]&[2] have the beliefs that there is only one Heaven. whereas [3] understands that there are many Heavens, and this because individuals create these.

In Genesis 1:1, God creates “the heavens and the earth.” It’s plural there. The “heavens” speak of a part of our current world, not “heaven” in the sense of a future resting place Christians will go to. In 2 Peter, the author is saying that this world will be replaced a new heavens and new earth, a redeemed physical world right here, so to speak. This isn’t a future heaven a far way away like, unfortunately, many Christians have been taught.

I don’t see how one would get to [3] from this verse at all.

[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.

I am confident that I have explained in this thread, in further detail, the individual process of creating the next phase experience based upon those things mentioned.

As such, one can easily enough connect the dots. Individuals create individual creations, thus [for those who create a heavenly environment] these can altogether be referred to as 'Heavens".

Yes, you have explained the process you think will happen. I agree that this verse doesn’t directly contradict that view. I’m saying one would not get your view if all they had was this verse, i.e., this verse doesn't directly teach your view of the afterlife.