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]?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #300]

Our schism is the result of our different views towards these texts, so it should be the focus right now.

Our schism may be the result of our different views towards these texts, but those different views derive from the point of origin, and are not the point of origin themselves.

As far as the scriptures that existed at the time Jesus was experiencing his particular Human incarnation, I have already argued that this would be a case of working with what he had to work with, which were beliefs based upon Human ignorance and imagination.
Most of what Jesus knew as truth regarding the immaterial, would have been beyond his followers ability to believe, especially if it contradicted their own beliefs….

Jesus was accused of blasphemy on different occasions, he escaped a few situations where it was about to get violent, he wasn’t just working with beliefs they already held, he could have easily taught, at the least, many more of the beliefs you claim he really held. He didn’t.

Yes he did and I have shown biblically where this occurred which was after the alleged resurrection.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.John 21...

Strangely, the Christian Church seems to have either misplaced this information or never were privy to it. Perhaps the authors chose to keep that information to themselves, or perhaps Jesus instructed them not to tell anyone that information, and expected folk to be able to work it out for themselves.

One thing is clear from the historic evidence, for some reason, Christianity seems to have suppressed the idea that we are Eternal Spirits within Human form, perhaps because Rome considered it better that folk were lead by their feelings of guilt and self-loathing, as well as it gave great position of power and influence to the priesthood which evolved within the Church. It matters not what the reasons were for this attempt at hiding information from their followers, the Christians.

Another clue we have is biblical Jesus telling his followers earlier, that;

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.Matt. 24:4...

I am compelled by the information to remain fluid in regard to that information and not to form static beliefs which prevent one from achieving that.

What I have asked you to provide is your own rational for believing that Angels and Demons existed prior to the formation of the material. Claiming "Jesus believed" moves the explanation away from a rational-based one and to a faith-based one. What I am after from you is why you think Angels and Demons existed prior to the formation of the material. I am satisfied you can give no such answer.

I gave my rationale.

No you did not. What I asked for specifically were the reasons you believe that Angels and Demons should have existed prior to the formation of the material Universe.
Claiming "Jesus believed" moves the explanation away from a rational-based one and to a faith-based one. What I am after from you is why you think Angels and Demons existed prior to the formation of the material.

Yes, ultimately, it comes down to trusting a Person.

No, you are not 'trusting a person'. You are trusting your interpretation of biblical Jesus and confusing the person with the biblical information attached to the character of the person. That is different. As you wrote in reply to my question as to which Jesus you are referring to ['Historical Jesus" "Biblical Jesus" or "Real Jesus as he exits today"] you claimed all three were the same thing. Obviously the bible itself tells us clearly that the real Jesus said things which the historical Jesus is not recorded [as biblical Jesus], as having said.

Whatever label you want to put on it, trust in the omniscient One is more sound (if true) than unsupported premises that build on each other.

You have only succeeded in showing that your trust is placed in a book, rather than any "omniscient One" and are confusing the two as the same thing. They are not, and those premises [which I have supported] give one far more detailed access to information re The Creator than just the one source which you choose to use, and interpret in your own fashion. [As do most Christians.]

You didn’t give a rational argument for any of your premises over possible alternative premises that could be true.

Yes I did and will continue to do so.

As stated, I follow the flow of information from many different sources which all point to The One Source. You admitted that you have always had a hard time wrapping your brain around a monistic view and the multiplicity of appearances of things, and the evidence supports that the reason for this is that your singular focus is only on what you interpret the bible as saying and anything outside of that source appears to be 'inadmissible' to you as evidence. That is why you make the false claim that I have not supported my views.
It is those filters you use, which have you experiencing "having a hard time understanding the monastic view".
________________________________________________________________
Presently I am involved with learning the meaning of the Hebrew letters of their alphabet, and their individual meanings, [as I offered an example for you to consider, in my last post].

It is part of the information pool which needs to be regarded, and - while I am but starting to investigate, I am already seeing therein, another reason for why Christianity branched out the way that it did in its attempt to conceal information that we are Aspects of The Creator Spirit [immaterial] rather than separate creations [developing ego-personalities] although I think transitioning from the one identity to the other, is part of that process and one which The Spirit propels those who do not want to remain in that static position, to enter the flow and accept the information therein.

All in all, I think we can take this no further as presently our schism begins directly after the agreed premise that we exist within a Creation [therefore there is a Creator] - in that we have distinctly different ideas as to the nature of said Creator, and obviously we are not going to agree with one another on anything which subsequently comes from that.

Go Well.

[The Tanager]

Our schism may be the result of our different views towards these texts, but those different views derive from the point of origin, and are not the point of origin themselves.

I’m talking about the logical point of our schism, are you? If so, then my logical reasoning flows in the way I described. Ultimately, our schism occurs at the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, it seems, but you asked about the part of my reasoning beyond that.

Yes he did and I have shown biblically where this occurred which was after the alleged resurrection.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.John 21...

Strangely, the Christian Church seems to have either misplaced this information or never were privy to it. Perhaps the authors chose to keep that information to themselves, or perhaps Jesus instructed them not to tell anyone that information, and expected folk to be able to work it out for themselves.

One thing is clear from the historic evidence, for some reason, Christianity seems to have suppressed the idea that we are Eternal Spirits within Human form, perhaps because Rome considered it better that folk were lead by their feelings of guilt and self-loathing, as well as it gave great position of power and influence to the priesthood which evolved within the Church. It matters not what the reasons were for this attempt at hiding information from their followers, the Christians.

Why think that the missing stories contain teachings that ultimately contradict the teachings that are shared? It even says things Jesus 'did', not 'said'. The authors would have shared what they thought were the main teachings. Anything left out would be more of the same or irrelevant to their purposes. John mainly seems to be using this to say that Jesus was so amazingly wonderful to fit into books, not that there are secret teachings to replace these ones. It is pure speculation to fill in the missing stories with any new teachings, much less choosing the ones you put in there rather than other ones someone could come up with. It’s more rational to just disconnect yourself from Jesus and argue for the teachings you believe being true.

Another clue we have is biblical Jesus telling his followers earlier, that;

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.Matt. 24:4...

I am compelled by the information to remain fluid in regard to that information and not to form static beliefs which prevent one from achieving that.

That sounds like reason to not remain fluid but to trust the teachings we have instead of trying to fill in new teachings that come from different sources.

No you did not. What I asked for specifically were the reasons you believe that Angels and Demons should have existed prior to the formation of the material Universe.
Claiming "Jesus believed" moves the explanation away from a rational-based one and to a faith-based one. What I am after from you is why you think Angels and Demons existed prior to the formation of the material.

I don’t think they should have existed prior to the material universe. They didn’t have to, as far as I can tell. I think they did exist prior to the formation of the material universe. I think they did because of the Biblical teachings on the matter, which I believe accurately portrays the omniscient One and His teachings. I trust the Biblical teachings on the matter because Jesus, part of the Triune omniscient One taught their truth. I trust that Jesus taught their truth because of the reliability of the New Testament in recording His teachings. I trust the reliability of the New Testament for the reasons I gave, including the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I trust the historicity of the Resurrection for the reasons I gave in the other thread, including the arguments for the existence of the Creator (which I mentioned but didn't go into in that thread).

No, you are not 'trusting a person'. You are trusting your interpretation of biblical Jesus and confusing the person with the biblical information attached to the character of the person. That is different. As you wrote in reply to my question as to which Jesus you are referring to ['Historical Jesus" "Biblical Jesus" or "Real Jesus as he exits today"] you claimed all three were the same thing. Obviously the bible itself tells us clearly that the real Jesus said things which the historical Jesus is not recorded [as biblical Jesus], as having said.

Of course, but if my interpretation is correct and not a confusion, then I am trusting the Person of Jesus. The John 21 passage tells us that Jesus did (not ‘said’) some things that weren’t recorded. It doesn’t say these things did (or said) are new teachings that show the other things to be false (or “incomplete”).

All in all, I think we can take this no further as presently our schism begins directly after the agreed premise that we exist within a Creation [therefore there is a Creator] - in that we have distinctly different ideas as to the nature of said Creator, and obviously we are not going to agree with one another on anything which subsequently comes from that.

We already knew we disagreed at that point. The reason to talk is to share the reasons why we disagree for the other one to consider in their own formation of their views on reality. I thank you for that and will always look forward to doing so in the future with you.

May we both follow the call of wisdom in our goings.

[William]

So we can see that there are many pockets of Christian Belief Systems to do with the nature of the question of the next phase experience, which don't agree with one another, but in the overall view, these can be sorted out into those two main categories which the stories chosen by those who compiled the bible, are most focused on having their followers believe.

It has also been shown that the third category [for which I argue] is also included in the bible, even that it is obscured by the more popular views.

It has also been shown, that Christians in general remain in their particular faith-based beliefs once they have established for themselves which version they prefer, according to the personality type that they are, and the particular interpretation of the bible they hold on to. As such belief is static in nature, there is no room for expansion and thus sources of information outside of the bible are systematically treated as 'inadmissible', such is the double standard imposed in order to 'keep the faith' they have - as individuals - invested in.

Re: [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 myself came to that understanding not only because of information sourced in the bible, but also information sourced from other places and treated by me as equally admissible as anything the bible says about the various versions of the next phase experience on offer to contemplate.

Re: [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.

and variations on those two themes, I see a simplistic beauty in allowing those persons the continued belief that they are - indeed - believing in something true, because all said and done, they want to believe whatever it is that they choose to believe in as being true, and if that means that everything outside of their own creation in the next phase, remains hidden from them forever, I see no harm has been done. They get what they want, are happy with the outcome, and that is that.

On the subject of Jesus [or for that matter], the old testament image of The Creator], I see no reason why - if they withhold information from Humans, that this should somehow count as an act of malicious deception, especially if the humans they are dealing with, are not open to said information. It is still better to work with the belief systems that Humans do have, and to tweak those sufficiently so such beliefs are seeded with promise of more positive outcome for those invested in them, are ultimately not going to create any harmful experience for themselves in the next phase, which also means that the information they affectively hide from, isn't doing them any harm by them not wanting to know sàd information.

That way, those who require justice, get their version of it, without any permanent harm taking place.

Some more information I have found [outside of bible source but connected to bible source] is that not all Jews believed what many Christians are informed that they believe, to do with matters regarding the next phase experience.

A certain branch of Hebrew tradition was focused on the Hebrew language, specifically to do with the meanings of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which derives from the branch called Kabbalah, which took the deeper waters of [so-called] Mysticism, and consider the human person to be more the way position [3] describes.

Kabbalah

Biblical Jesus - it can be said - was a bit of a Mystic himself, if indeed, the stories re him, are to be taken seriously.

[William]

Another bible verse which can be used to support position [3].

“He discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth out to light the shadow of death.” Job 12:22

[myth-one.com]

However, the Bible is clear that Jesus was raised as a spirit and there are several accounts of spirits taking the physical form of a man.

Jesus himself states that He was resurrected as a flesh and blood man:

But they were terrified and affrightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

1 Corinthians 15:42, 43 says of those imperfect people that go to heaven, "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body."

Why would a perfect Jesus be denied a spiritual body?

Jesus is the only person to qualify as an heir to everlasting life under the Old Testament Covenant. He did so by living a sinless life. That is, the wages of sin is death, but He never sinned, so His name is written in the Book of Life as an heir to everlasting life under the Old Testament covenant between God and mankind.

He will not accept His inheritance, but offers it as a gift to those who believe in Him as their Savior under the New Testament Covenant:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

If Jesus was born again of the Spirit as a new spirit, then He would have accepted His just inheritance.

But He cannot accept His inheritance and give it away as a gift to believers! He can only do one or the other!

If He accepted His inheritance, we would have no Savior.

You need to rethink that idea.

He was seen being carried off to heaven by angels. But He didn't enter heaven as a man.

He is back as the Word -- from which He was temporarily made flesh as Jesus.

[William]

William: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife
[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.

Chat GPT: These interpretations are broadly consistent with various beliefs about the afterlife found in different Christian denominations and traditions. It is worth noting that the specifics of each interpretation may vary among different groups, and that there may be additional interpretations beyond these three.

The first interpretation posits that human beings are comprised of both body and spirit, and that after death the spirit is judged by God and either sent to heaven or hell. This interpretation is often associated with a more traditional Christian worldview and is found in many denominations.

The second interpretation suggests that the human being ceases to exist after death, but that some may be resurrected and given a new body if they are deemed saved by God. This view is also found in some Christian denominations and is often associated with beliefs in bodily resurrection and eternal life.

The third interpretation posits that the human being is an eternal spirit in human form, and that after death the spirit immediately moves on to the next phase of existence. This interpretation is found in some spiritualist and new age beliefs, and may incorporate concepts such as reincarnation and the law of attraction.

Overall, the specifics of each interpretation may vary depending on the particular denomination or belief system, but the general themes of judgment, resurrection, and continuation of the human spirit beyond physical death are common to many Christian beliefs about the afterlife.

William: Please provide any biblical references which might support the third interpretation.

Chat GPT: The third interpretation, that a person is an eternal spirit in human form, and that after death the spirit immediately moves on to the next phase of existence, is not explicitly stated in the Bible. However, there are some biblical passages that have been interpreted by some to support this view.

One example is found in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus speaks about the resurrection of the dead: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). Some have interpreted this to mean that after death, humans will exist in a spiritual form, similar to angels.

Another passage that has been interpreted to support the idea of an afterlife beyond physical death is found in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 21:1-4, John describes a vision of a new heaven and a new earth, where there will be no more death or sorrow. This passage has been interpreted to suggest that there is an existence beyond physical death, where humans will experience a new form of life.

Finally, there are several passages in the New Testament that suggest the possibility of reincarnation or multiple lives. For example, in Matthew 11:14, Jesus speaks of John the Baptist as the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah: "And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come." Additionally, in John 9:1-3, Jesus encounters a man who was born blind, and his disciples ask him if the man's blindness was caused by his own sin or the sin of his parents. This passage has been interpreted to suggest the possibility that a person's present life may be affected by their actions in a previous life.

It's worth noting, however, that these interpretations are subject to debate and may not be universally accepted among Christian denominations.

William: [2] can fit into [3] in that, even if one is left in the ground for a billion years, once resurrected, that personality would have experienced its death and resurrection as an instantaneous event...

Chat GPT: That is a possible interpretation of how [2] could fit into [3], as the resurrection and granting of an eternal body could be seen as the immediate continuation of the person's existence in a new phase, rather than a separate afterlife. However, this interpretation would depend on the belief that the person's eternal spirit continues to exist after physical death and is reunited with their resurrected body at some point.

William: What I am trying to convey is the idea that even if one dies and is resurrected after a billion years has unfolded in real time, for that individual, it would be the same type of experience as for the individual who dies and immediately begins the new phase

Chat GPT: Yes, I understand what you're saying. From the perspective of the person who died and was resurrected, there would be no experience of time passing, as their consciousness would have ceased to exist between death and resurrection. From their point of view, it would be an instantaneous transition from physical death to the next phase of existence, whether that is a resurrection to eternal life or some other form of afterlife. This is consistent with the idea that a person's eternal spirit continues to exist after physical death, even if their consciousness is not active during that time.

William: The difference between the individuals would be huge in relation to knowledge. One would know how the unfolding events unfolded to that point in time a billion years into a future, while the other would not have the same knowledge of experience.

Chat GPT: Yes, that's correct. The individual who is resurrected after a billion years would not have the same knowledge or experience of the events that occurred during that time as the individual who died and immediately began the next phase. This highlights the idea that time may not be experienced in the same linear way in the afterlife as it is in our current physical reality.

William: It does NOT highlight any such thing

Chat GPT: I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct that my statement was not accurate in the context of the discussion about the two individuals and their experiences. The difference between their experiences would be in terms of knowledge and awareness, not in how they experience time. The concept of time in the afterlife is a separate topic that may or may not be related to this discussion.

[William]

The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife and The Father's Plan

William: 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.

Chat GPT: It is important to note that biblical interpretation can vary greatly among individuals and religious traditions. While some may argue that the Bible supports only one of the interpretations mentioned, others may argue that it supports a combination or a different interpretation altogether. Ultimately, the interpretation of the Bible is subjective and can be influenced by various factors such as personal beliefs, cultural context, and scholarly research. Therefore, it is not accurate to make a blanket statement about whether or not the Bible contradicts itself, as different interpretations can lead to different conclusions.

William: Given the argument made re [1] [2] [3], 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]?

Chat GPT: Based on the information provided, it could be argued that [3] is a viable interpretation of the biblical teachings on the afterlife, and that it does not necessarily contradict [1] or [2]. Ultimately, the interpretation of the Bible's teachings on the afterlife is a matter of personal belief and faith.

William: Personal belief and faith was mentioned re the filters.

Chat GPT: Yes, personal belief and faith can play a significant role in how individuals interpret and understand the Bible, and can act as filters that shape their understanding of biblical teachings on the afterlife. For example, someone who believes in the traditional Christian concept of heaven and hell may interpret biblical passages on the afterlife through that lens, while someone who holds a more universalist or spiritually-oriented belief system may interpret the same passages in a different way. Ultimately, one's personal belief and faith can influence how they interpret and understand biblical teachings on the afterlife, and there may not be one "correct" interpretation that fits everyone's beliefs and understanding.

William: [3] should not be seen a threat to those filters, since it incorporates [1] and [2] positions rather than attempts to exclude them. It does not attempt to filter [1] or [2] through belief.

Chat GPT: That is correct. [3] does not seek to exclude [1] or [2], but rather includes them within a larger framework. It also does not rely solely on personal belief or faith, but takes into account a combination of beliefs, attitudes, and actions that shape an individual's experience in the afterlife. This approach acknowledges the complexity and diversity of human experience and offers a broader perspective on the nature of the afterlife that can be inclusive of different belief systems and interpretations.

William: Given that, one is not looking for 'the best' as something in competition with other concepts, but rather the best position to hold, overall...

Chat GPT: Based on the information provided, it seems that [3] offers a more inclusive and harmonious interpretation of the biblical teachings regarding the afterlife. It acknowledges the aspects of [1] and [2] while also allowing for individual agency and the role of belief and attitude in shaping one's experience.

William: In shaping one's interpretation of one's experience....

Chat GPT: Yes, in shaping one's interpretation of one's experience, one's personal beliefs and faith can play a significant role. Our beliefs and faith can influence how we interpret and understand the events and experiences in our lives, including our beliefs about the afterlife. For example, if someone believes in the concept of reincarnation, they may interpret their experiences differently than someone who believes in a single afterlife judgment. Similarly, someone with a strong faith in a particular religion may interpret their experiences in light of their religious beliefs. Our beliefs and faith can provide a framework for understanding and making sense of our experiences, but they can also limit our understanding if we are unwilling to consider other perspectives or possibilities.

William: It is important to have a correct/truthful interpretation of one's experience...

Chat GPT: Yes, having a correct and truthful interpretation of one's experience can help an individual to better understand themselves and the world around them, as well as inform their beliefs, values, and actions. It can also lead to personal growth and development, and potentially deepen one's spiritual or philosophical understanding.

William: Re our conversation on The Father's Plan...please summarized the interaction to this point.

Chat GPT: Certainly. To summarize our discussion, we explored the concept of The Father's Plan and how it relates to different interpretations of the afterlife in the Bible. We discussed three different interpretations:

A person is a spirit temporarily existing in human form and enters an afterlife after death, where they are judged by God and either condemned or saved.

A person is a human being who ceases to exist after death, but may be resurrected and given a new body if judged as saved by God.

A person is an eternal spirit in human form who immediately transitions to the next phase of existence after death, based on a combination of their beliefs, attitude, and actions in their previous phase.

We also discussed how these interpretations are filtered through personal belief and faith, and how [3] is not necessarily in opposition to [1] and [2], but rather incorporates them. Ultimately, the goal is to have a truthful interpretation of our experiences, including our beliefs about the afterlife and The Father's Plan.

[William]

From another thread discussion:

Note: I have placed this here, because I think it is related to this thread topic and I want to comment on these points being made, without disrupting the other thread topic from where these were lifted.

1. Adam and Eve were like the rest of us and were as the scriptures attest, spirit children of God, our Eternal Father who is indeed the father of all his spirit children.

Adam and Eve were not like the rest of us, for many reasons, some of which I now note:
1. Eve's body was made through the process of cloning.
2. Adam had a direct and apparently visible relationship with his creator.
3. There is no mention of Eve having the breath of YHVH.

2. Each of us as spirit children of divine parents received spirit bodies and in heaven were on our mission to grow and become prepared to receive at our appointed time physical bodies of flesh and bone.

This is only true of those who know it to be the case.

3. Adam and Eve dwelt in the Garden off Eden for a unspecified period which could have been hundreds of years.

I think 30 years is a useful timeline, if we are going to include that in the debate.

4. They had no children during their entire time in the garden.

This may have been because Eve was a later addition - perhaps around year 28/29

5. They appear to have all memory of their pre-earth life erased like the rest of us when we were born.

This is because it was important re YHVH's plan. Without the sentience experiencing being 'human', the results will be smudged. Authenticity produces the results YHVH requires.

6. In their child like innocence according to the Bible their eyes were not yet opened to understand good or evil. In other words they had zero experience in exercising the power of agency.

Another reason for the authenticity. Without the tabula rasa in place, the authenticity could not be established.

7. As such they were not capable of understanding the consequences of exercising agency.

Assuming Adam was the main player for most of this time, yes - he was capable as a sentient person of learning such things as he naturally grew.
Adam could have started out as a toddler in the garden, tended to by the messengers delivering YHVH's will as part of the process.

8. There is nothing to indicate that they had any concept of what this new word death meant.

This appears to be the case.
However, 30 years of living on this planet would have shown Adam sufficient evidence that things die. Things were created by YHVH, to have a 'use-by date'.
Adam would have learned at some point that he was a 'Spirit' and perhaps even realized that he probably had some prior existence, even if he did not know the details.
In that, it might be argued that Adam had no understanding of death the way YHVH was meaning it.

9. At that point in history they were unaware that God had appointed a time for all men to die.

This may have been the case because there was the tree of life, which Adam was permitted to eat of, which any humans existing outside of the garden would not have had access to.
In order for this to be the case, Adam must have had some type of access to knowledge of things happening outside of Eden.

10. At that time they were not yet informed that Jesus Christ was foreordained before the foundations of this world to become the savior of all mankind.
11. At that time they were not informed that all mankind would be redeemed and by his atonement be resurrected and overcome death.

Adam may have been aware of this information, if he had of had access to his former existence, before being transferred [breathed] into the human form YHVH prepared for the Spirit which 'became' "Adam".
But yes, the information was - perhaps - not accessible to Adam as it would have had no relevance to him prior to eating the forbidden fruit.

12. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden as immortal beings not subject to death.

It is uncertain as to the state of Eve, as we do not know much about how human clones think or act re sentience.
However, Adam - as the authentic personality YVHV was growing in the garden - was only able not to physically die, if he ate of the fruit of life.

13. They received the God given gift of agency and told that they may chose for themselves.

That is the sentience given to the body-set, which then 'became' the "Adam" personality.
The ability to choose, is the natural state of sentience, once perimeters are set up where choices can be made.

14. I find nowhere any evidence or statement that God cursed Adam.

There is mentioned of YHVH cursing the clone - Eve - with the pain of childbirth, but - like with death - If they were eventually going to mate, it would have been inevitable that Eve would eventually experience giving birth to children and experiencing all the pain that goes with that.

15. It appears that mortality is indeed a part and parcel of our mortal probation on this earth.

We [as "spirits"] are here to assist YHVH with the growing of human personalities which can be useful to YHVH's Plans.

16. Death has never denied anyone from receiving every blessing God has ever promised including eternal life.

This is not necessarily correct.
Those who do not come to the understanding that they are Spirit Children of YHVH here to assist YHVH with The Plan, either by believing that they are simply products of the human brain, or believing that they are the body-set rather than Children of YHVH are still somewhat blessed by YHVH.
This because, YHVH wants them to understand themselves as Children of YHVH rather than simply that which turns to dust and fades into oblivion, only hoping in being chosen by YHVH to be resurrected at some point in future time.

[Such would only happen if there were those personalities among the dead, seen to be still useful to YHVH. Otherwise they stay on ice until, if ever, YHVH finds a use for them.]

Overall, the object of The Plan is for YHVH to grow personalities which are useful to the objective of The Plan.

Any who cannot say that they are Spirit Children of YHVH, are simply not, by their own admission. They choose not to see themselves in that manner.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to William in post #1]

Number 2 all the way. That is what the Bible actually teaches, and it is apparent, if a person is willing to undertake a deeper scrutiny into the Word of God. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that humans were created to be spirits.

[William]

William: Greetings GPT - I am William. Please provide for me if you can, biblical referrences which tell us that we are Children of "GOD".

GPT: Greetings William!

There are several biblical references that refer to believers as children of God. Here are a few examples:

John 1:12-13: "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."

Romans 8:14-17: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

Galatians 3:26: "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith."

1 John 3:1-2: "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

These verses and others like them affirm that those who have faith in Jesus Christ are considered children of God.

William: Thank you! Can you also provide other biblical references that humans are spirit-beings


GPT: Certainly! Here are a few biblical references that suggest that humans are spiritual beings:

Ecclesiastes 12:7: "and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

1 Corinthians 2:11: "For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

1 Thessalonians 5:23: "Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

These verses suggest that humans have a spiritual component in addition to their physical bodies. The Bible teaches that humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and that we have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit as believers in Jesus Christ (John 14:16-17). The spiritual aspect of our being is important to our relationship with God and our understanding of our purpose in life.

William: Re Ecclesiastes - please provide any further references from that book which tells us we are spirit being within the experience of human form.

GPT: The book of Ecclesiastes does not explicitly teach that humans are spiritual beings within the experience of human form. However, the following verses suggest that there is a spiritual dimension to human life:

Ecclesiastes 3:11: "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
This verse suggests that humans have a longing for something beyond this life, a sense of eternity that cannot be fully comprehended. This longing for eternity may be seen as evidence of the spiritual nature of humanity.

Ecclesiastes 12:1: "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them'"
This verse reminds us that we have a Creator and that we are accountable to Him. The idea of being accountable to a higher power may be seen as a spiritual concept.

While Ecclesiastes does not explicitly teach that humans are spiritual beings, it does offer insights into the human experience and the importance of seeking meaning and purpose in life. Ultimately, the spiritual dimension of our being is something that is addressed more fully in other books of the Bible, such as the New Testament writings.

William: The writer appears to have a distain for human beings and appears to be of the opinion/hold the belief that humans are essentially just animals...with such expression as "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? "

GPT: It is true that the writer of Ecclesiastes can come across as having a pessimistic view of human existence and the fleeting nature of life. However, it is important to keep in mind the context and purpose of the book. Ecclesiastes is a philosophical and reflective work that seeks to grapple with the question of the meaning and purpose of life. The author, known as Qoheleth or the Preacher, observes that much of what we pursue in life is ultimately empty and meaningless, and that we are all subject to the same fate of death.

The passage you quoted from Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 acknowledges the similarities between humans and animals, particularly in their mortality. However, the emphasis is not so much on the idea that humans are merely animals, but rather on the idea that both humans and animals are subject to the same fate of death, which the author views as a frustrating and ultimately futile aspect of human existence. The passage also raises the question of what happens to the spirit of humans and animals after death, a question that the author admits cannot be answered definitively.

It is worth noting that other parts of the Bible affirm the unique value and dignity of human beings, who are created in the image of God and endowed with the ability to reason, make moral choices, and have a relationship with God. While Ecclesiastes can be a challenging book to read, it is ultimately part of the larger biblical narrative that affirms the goodness of God's creation and the potential for human beings to experience a meaningful and purposeful life in relationship with their Creator.

William: Given that, it would be unwise to consider Qoheleth the Preacher's words, out of context with other authors or give the preacher more due than required...for example, to claim that the preachers words are to be regarded as the thing to believe as the truth on the matter of 'what a human being is'

GPT: I agree that it is important to read and interpret the book of Ecclesiastes in its broader biblical context, and to avoid giving the words of the Preacher undue weight or authority over other biblical authors.

As with any text, it is important to consider the historical and cultural context in which it was written, as well as the literary genre and the intended audience. Ecclesiastes is a work of wisdom literature that reflects the worldview and philosophical musings of a particular author living in a particular time and place. While the book contains important insights into the human experience and the search for meaning and purpose in life, it is not meant to be read as a comprehensive or authoritative statement on the nature of humanity or the meaning of life.

As you suggest, it is important to consider the teachings of other biblical authors who affirm the unique value and dignity of human beings as created in the image of God, and who offer a more hopeful and positive vision of the human condition. By reading Ecclesiastes in light of the broader biblical narrative, we can gain a more nuanced and holistic understanding of what it means to be human and how we can live a meaningful and purposeful life.

_________________________________________________

[Replying to William in post #1]

Number 2 all the way. That is what the Bible actually teaches, and it is apparent, if a person is willing to undertake a deeper scrutiny into the Word of God. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that humans were created to be spirits.

1: If you want to believe that you are destined for the dirt, that is entirely your choice.
2: The "Word of God" is not the bible. That is a common misconception especially held by the protestant sector of Christianity.
3: The argument I present is not that humans were created to be spirits. Rather, my argument is that the Children of YVHV are Spirit within the experience of the human form, and that as Spirit we represent YHVH in helping to create useful human personalities. The process is made easier once the individual realizes that he/she is essentially Spirit, rather than self identifying as the flesh device/human instrument, as you and many others, currently do.