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]?

[myth-one.com]

The spiritual being The Word no longer exists as flesh.

I didn't ask about The Word, I' m asking about the fouth individual

The fourth individual is The Word made flesh!

The Word made flesh no longer exists.

Here's another way to phrase it, "The spiritual being The Word no longer exists as flesh."

And there is no longer any reason for Him to exist.

He became flesh to live a sinless life under the Old Testament Covenant, then die, and become the only individual to ever become an inheritor of everlasting life under that Covenant.

God then allows Him to gift His inheritance to whosoever believeth in Him as their Savior from the wages of their sins -- under a New Testament Covenant.

==============================================

But here is a quote from "Why did Jesus die" on the jw.org website:

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

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

If so, that is incorrect. The first death is appointed to every man. Once born of the flesh, Jesus had no choice but to die His first death.

The wages of sin is not our "first" death. We will all live again after our first death -- as Jesus did.

The wages of sin is the second and everlasting death when cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.

Jesus was not cast into the lake of fire -- so He did not pay the wages for our sins!

Jesus saves us by freely offering us His inheritance of everlasting life which He qualified for by living a sinless human life -- being tempted like all of us under the Old Testament Covenant.

Thus, salvation becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
===========================================

Just for everyone's information -- that's how it works.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #120]

The spiritual being The Word no longer exists as flesh.

There is no longer any reason for the Word to exist as flesh.

But the Word is the same person, right? Different body, sure, but same person. Because Christ Jaheshua (though it is written 'Jesus') is the One who sent His angel to John (of Patmos), to give John that revelation. This of course would be after His death, resurrection and ascension.

“I, [Jesus], have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” Rev 22:16


Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #123]

Specifically the thread is focused on the next phase and [3] holds the position that we each are Eternal Spirits so cannot die.

The belef in Jesus return to this planet is not under a different category because as with [1] [2] &[3] it is something which we currently have yet to experience.

I agree that His return need not be under a different category. I know positions [1] and [2] take that into consideration (though I revised them to be accurate and to show this). I just don't see how [3] makes sense with regard to all who are alive at the time Christ returns.



Peace again.

[William]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #123]

Specifically the thread is focused on the next phase and [3] holds the position that we each are Eternal Spirits so cannot die.

The belef in Jesus return to this planet is not under a different category because as with [1] [2] &[3] it is something which we currently have yet to experience.

I agree that His return need not be under a different category. I know positions [1] and [2] take that into consideration (though I revised them to be accurate and to show this). I just don't see how [3] makes sense with regard to all who are alive at the time Christ returns.



Peace again.

The event fits into [3] in the same way that the physical universe does.
Due to the symbolic nature of the subject and the inevitable difference of interpretation of said material by [1]&[2] the position of [3] is related to the same idea...that this universe is the creation of The Creator which unfolds in relation to That Creators own beliefs.

Exactly what those belifs are cannot be determined until the event actually happens. Not what anyone believes is going to happen. What will happen.

[3] allows for folk to still have choice whether they remain forever in this particular universe move on to the next phase or have access to all realms and freedom of movement therein.

[JehovahsWitness]

The fourth individual is The Word made flesh!

The Word made flesh no longer exists.

Would it be accurate to identify the fourth individual as Jesus Christ?




JW

[The Tanager]

But you misunderstood me. I was referring to the function of the forms to do with concealing from the knowledge of Spirit within, anything to do with memory of having a prior existence.
I was not arguing that the form was created to enable sinfulness.

I did not think you were arguing that the form was created to enable sinfulness.

Rather the form enables whatever the Spirit animating it, wants to use it for.

Do you have any support for this claim for me to consider its truth?

Q: Does the human form possess a 'will'? [1]&[2] Or has the Spirit surrendered its will to the human form, by identifying as the human form? [3].

You have not provided support that "human wills" are not created by the Spirit surrendered its will to the human form, by identifying as the human form. You still hold the position that you are both "Spirit" and "Form" do you not?

I do not but that's probably just getting the terminology wrong. In hylomorphism the 'form' is the spirit. I hold the position that I am both form and matter (or spirit and body).

Now, why haven't I offered support for my disagreement with your view? You have the burden of supporting your view; I don't have the burden to disprove it. Okay but why haven't I offered positive support for my view? I entered this discussion because you asked me what my view was, not because I was trying to argue for my view over yours. Since then I have been considering your claims. Okay but shouldn't I be willing to offer support for my view against yours since I'm not agnostic on the issue? Sure. I don't always offer my views for consideration in every conversation I have but when asked directly I'm always willing to give my reasons for my beliefs.

It seems to me that your view makes an extra claim. In both views, if I understand correctly, the human/human form will exhibit a will. For example, when Joshua 24:15 reads "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," both views can logically account for this. In my view, the human will is choosing to serve the Lord or other gods. In your view, the Spirit has surrendered its will to the human form which is choosing to serve the Lord or other gods. The surrendering of the Spirit's will to the human form is an added layer. In my studies I have seen no Biblical support for this added layer. But I'm open to changing my mind.

I could see a verse like Galatians 5:16-17 being interpreted to support your view but I don't think it would be a good interpretation. It reads: "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do."

The Spirit being talked about is God, not the Eternal Spirit housed in our human form. We are told to be led by the Spirit (v. 18) not that we are the Spirit. We are told to live by the Spirit and walk in step with the Spirit (v. 25) not that we are that Spirit.

Because the human form was designed so that the Spirit within it animating it, has no recollection of being anything else...yet the truth is, It does have a history which goes back to before this universe was created.

Do you have any support for this claim for me to consider its truth?

That is the thing about beliefs [1]&[2]&[3] - they are not supported by anything other than those who believe them 'think they are true'.

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.

Some understand that the Creators Breath is what Spirit is. The support for that, I gave in one of my first posts in this thread.

I have only recently joined this thread because you responded to me in another thread with a link here. If you want me to consider that support please tell me what post you gave it in.

But anyway, you cannot complain that I 'give no support' when no ones else does either. Remember that this thread is about the different biblical interpretations which support all three positions. It is easy to understand that the bible is made up of writings from different people who believed these different positions. [3] is the only position which ties them all together.

I don't know what other people have or haven't done in this thread. You responded to me in another thread with a link here. I don't want to read through the 90 earlier posts and those since I responded that continue those discussions I haven't read. Perhaps they have casted accusations instead of dealing with the issues. I'm here to deal with the issues. I'm here to converse with you. Although, of course, should others respond to me, I'll begin conversing with them on the issues as well. I have given support and am willing to go into further detail and discussion of that support. Of course people can interpret any writing to say whatever they want. That doesn't mean they are good interpretations. I am aware of no good Biblical support for [3]. I'm open to changing my mind, though.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #137]



So your belief you are ‘spirit’ is not in the usual sense of the immaterial but of the material?

And yes, your claims also require burden of proof.

It appears that we do not share any similar understanding of what ‘spirit’ is and thus are talking past one another.
What evidence I have which propels me to understand I am Spirit [The Creators Breath - Genesis 2~7] within form has to do with personal experience of having left my body. [The body is designed to enable this to occur under certain circumstances.]

This is a well enough known phenomenon and has been something which members of the human race have experienced since before recorded history and is one of the main reasons for why theism exists. Because it opens the door to the alternative [to our universe] experience.

When an atheist demands evidence for the unseen, what is your response as a theist? I don’t accept any theist to demand evidence of the unseen from another theist, as in doing so one is really only showing that their beliefs are based upon faith that they are right to believe whatever it is that they believe, which are the weaknesses of positions [1]&[2] because [3] is not based upon faith in the unseen but in knowledge of experience of the unseen.

So unless [1]&[2] are positions which describe atheists with faith rather than theists with knowledge, I do not see your position as something which in any manner logically overrides [3] in terms of ‘the better thing to follow'.

If faith rather than experience are the positions of [1]&[2] then [3] based in experience is the position better serving – because it is based upon the knowing one is not the form [human] and realizing one is a “Spirit” which temporarily occupies the form and develops data of experience thought that medium.
When one knows that to being the case, one naturally shifts away from any and all notions which place one in denial of that being the case – something which positions [1]&[2] most obviously do.
Also [as I have noted in previous posts in this thread] the evidence that positions [1]&[2] are not aligned and thus lack solid consensus agreed upon. Position [3] has no such concerns and does not have to involve itself with the disagreements positions [1]&[2] have with each other. Those in position [3] know, and have no problem is seeing where [1]&[2] are placed within [3] whereas [1]&[2] – while able to agree in some areas, cannot agree [fit the one into the other] on other beliefs, and outright reject [3] as even relevant.

As to the argument that the Spirit surrenders its will to the body – this has to do with the default setting of the initialization of Spirit with Form...and the form is [must be] designed to inhibit any and all memory of a past existence.

This naturally results in forming self identification with the form, by the Spirit, who does not even know that it is a Spirit. The body of flesh does not possess a will, but rather is possessed by a will.
The will derives from consciousness and the consciousness is the “Spirit” and in the initial natural unfolding of the individual human, a personality is formed, and the personality is the result of the Spirit not knowing it has always existed as Spirit.

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

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

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

Depending upon whether the Spirit understands itself in this manner or not, determines how the Spirit will then experience its next phase.
The addition of the gift of being able to create ones own reality is not realized by those Spirits who are unaware of what they really are. To them, the next experience will be created for [not by] them – they already expect it will be that way so simply move into it and serve it rather than the other way around.

This is what Christ was referring to when he claimed that The Kingdom of is within us [Luke 17:21]
[and why The Campfire etc.., exists]

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #137]

That is the thing about beliefs [1]&[2]&[3] - they are not supported by anything other than those who believe them 'think they are true'.

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.

As the OP points out, what "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife" are has to do with the biblical portions which sort the interpreters into three distinct types.
[3] does not undermine any aspect of Christs mission.

Of course people can interpret any writing to say whatever they want. That doesn't mean they are good interpretations. I am aware of no good Biblical support for [3]. I'm open to changing my mind, though.

Then here are my posts which show biblical support for the position [3]...

Post #4
Post #6
Post #17
Post #24
Post #63
Post #66
Post #129

So if you are telling the truth, and do want to know more as part of being open to changing your mind, please feel free to read what I wrote already and therein, anything you come across which you find biblically questionable, get back to me on that.

Universal Balance and Harmony.

[William]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #8]

That is one version of Jewish-Christian belief and subsequent thinking, presented by someone whom obviously believes that version.

In order to believe that version, the breath of an Eternal being has to be delegated 'mortal' which is the first contradiction.

From that contradiction, more derive, and each step moves one further from all truth.

Partial truth is of course, better than no truth at all and as I have shown by the documentation, those in positions [1]&[2] who believe they are the human form will experience the consequence of those beliefs in the next phase.

Those individuals [unaware Spirits] will be contained within the manifestation of the individuals own expectations, which are largely safe enough places in which to occupy unaware Spirits within the vastness of The Holographic Realms [aka "The Fathers Kingdom" & "The Astral Planes"].

"Souls" are interfaced with the overall product of the "personality" which essentially is the Data of Experience gained through this experience, prior to the next phase.

Spirit - "The Creators Breath" is the receptacle of said Data of Experience...and the 'soul' is an aspect of the Spirit, acting as a kind of memory storage facility. The personality gained through the human experience is not real. It is simply data.

That appears to be an issue for some who want to believe that their experience as a human is real - as in - they think that is what they are.

What is really happening is that they are Spirits whom are unaware [or resisting awareness] due to their identification with the personality created through the experience of being human.

Such as is the case, they resist all knowledge [truth] choosing rather, to identify as being the data.

Thus, they [those Spirits] temporarily become 'saved data' and their immediate experience in the next phase will allow for them to have their expectations manifested as real, and in that - they add to the ongoing Data of Experience as that experience unfolds for them, whether it is in some heaven, or on some new earth or whatever the personality [Data believed by the Spirits to being who they are] believes will occur for them in said next phase.

It is not until each Spirit [Individual Breath of The Eternal Creator] comes to the realization that they are not data, but rather are that which is utilizing form in order to gather data of experience, that said Spirits can then detach from idea that the data is 'real' and therefore allow the data to be what it is, while they in turn, become what they really are - entering into all truth rather than remaining in partial truth...

The idea of The Holographic Realms [aka "The Fathers Kingdom" & "The Astral Planes"] are all pre-religious beliefs derived from experience and many religions have since attempted to suppress this knowledge by claiming it as 'evil'.
Individual Christians go so far as to attempt to belittle and mock what they fear/don't understand, by claiming it is 'evil' or 'a mind-trip' and any other derogatory expression aimed at suppressing all knowledge through delegating which knowledge is 'true' [their own of course] and which knowledge is false [anything which is not what they believe.]



Plane (esotericism)

[The Tanager]

So your belief you are ‘spirit’ is not in the usual sense of the immaterial but of the material?

No. I believe I am spirit and body. The spirit part is immaterial, the body part is material.

And yes, your claims also require burden of proof.

I didn't say otherwise. I even gave my reasoning. I'll give it again, put differently. Here are the two claims, as I understand them:

(1) The human possesses a will

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

The default position is agnosticism. I believe (1) is Biblical and more rational than (2) mainly because of simplicity. All else being equal, I think the simpler answer is the more rational one. And I mean 'simple' in the sense of having less layers of reality to account for. Both views can be used as a framework to interpret Biblical passages (and non-Biblical examples and passages). The passages don't have this question in mind, so they don't address it for or against (as far as I'm aware). Simplicity favors (1) over (2) because (2) includes the same layer of reality as (1), although it re-interprets it, but (2) adds another layer. The additional layer adds a burden on the one that holds that view to establish it.

So, for me to rationally believe your view is more sound than (1), you would need to either (a) argue that complexity of view is more rational or (b) show that not all else is equal, that I've missed some evidence that sways the support to (2) from (1).

What evidence I have which propels me to understand I am Spirit [The Creators Breath - Genesis 2~7] within form has to do with personal experience of having left my body. [The body is designed to enable this to occur under certain circumstances.]

How have you ruled out the alternative that it only seemed to you that you were having an out of body experience?

This is a well enough known phenomenon and has been something which members of the human race have experienced since before recorded history and is one of the main reasons for why theism exists. Because it opens the door to the alternative [to our universe] experience.

I wouldn't say it is one of the main reasons for belief in theism but it is a reason some are theists. I don't have data on it, though, so I'm speaking anecdotally. Do you have evidence that backs this up?

When an atheist demands evidence for the unseen, what is your response as a theist? I don’t accept any theist to demand evidence of the unseen from another theist, as in doing so one is really only showing that their beliefs are based upon faith that they are right to believe whatever it is that they believe, which are the weaknesses of positions [1]&[2] because [3] is not based upon faith in the unseen but in knowledge of experience of the unseen.

I give reasons for the atheist to rationally consider because I think theism is rational.

Why do you think this faith/experience distinction is valid? Christians who believe in 1 and 2 will claim they have experienced the unseen as well, not that they just 'have faith' as you seem to be meaning that term.

Also [as I have noted in previous posts in this thread] the evidence that positions [1]&[2] are not aligned and thus lack solid consensus agreed upon. Position [3] has no such concerns and does not have to involve itself with the disagreements positions [1]&[2] have with each other. Those in position [3] know, and have no problem is seeing where [1]&[2] are placed within [3] whereas [1]&[2] – while able to agree in some areas, cannot agree [fit the one into the other] on other beliefs, and outright reject [3] as even relevant.

1, 2, and 3 are all not aligned. You keep saying that position 3 places 1 and 2 within it, but you re-interpret 1 and 2. Don't be fooled by the semantics. All three are not aligned with each other.

As to the argument that the Spirit surrenders its will to the body – this has to do with the default setting of the initialization of Spirit with Form...and the form is [must be] designed to inhibit any and all memory of a past existence.

This is begging the question. I'm asking you for the rational support for believing these things are true, not to explain how it works if it is true.

This naturally results in forming self identification with the form, by the Spirit, who does not even know that it is a Spirit. The body of flesh does not possess a will, but rather is possessed by a will.
The will derives from consciousness and the consciousness is the “Spirit” and in the initial natural unfolding of the individual human, a personality is formed, and the personality is the result of the Spirit not knowing it has always existed as Spirit...

I didn't say the body of flesh possesses a will. I said the human (spirit and body) possesses a will. I believe consciousness is the immaterial part, the spirit, the soul. I see no reason to believe the Spirit has eternally existed yet doesn't know it because of the human body and the rest of your view. I know that is your view. Explaining what it is is not supporting it.

This is what Christ was referring to when he claimed that The Kingdom of is within us [Luke 17:21]

I see no textual reasons to believe that is what Jesus thought He was teaching. His audience thought the kingdom would be a political kingdom. Jesus is saying it's not a political thing but something God wants to do in and with us. Then Jesus talks about the days of the Son of Man, people not being ready, and people trying to keep or lose their life. What textual clues lead you to your interpretation of this passage?

Then here are my posts which show biblical support for the position [3]...

Post #4
Post #6
Post #17
Post #24
Post #63
Post #66
Post #129

So if you are telling the truth, and do want to know more as part of being open to changing your mind, please feel free to read what I wrote already and therein, anything you come across which you find biblically questionable, get back to me on that.

Where [3] is "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."

Thank you for taking the time to find these for me to consider. So, I see these claims in [3]:

(a) persons are eternal
(b) spirits
(c) in human form
(d) upon death the Spirit moves to the next phase they create for their self due to what they believe, their attitude, and their previous actions.

And these are the following possible points I see you offering in support of these four claims in those posts you linked me to. Please correct any misunderstandings.


1. Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7 / Post 4

It is my understanding that the "Image of God" and the "Breath of God" are the same thing

The verse says "breath of life" not "breath of God," though. So, first you would need to argue for why "life" and "God" are the same thing here. Second, you would need to support why "image of God" and "breath of life/God" are the same thing.

they represent the "Spirit of God" and that "Man" is the human form in which the Spirit of God was placed into.

Third, you need to support why the "Spirit of God" is also the same thing as the "Breath/image of life/God"? The text doesn't directly assert any of these three things, as far as I can see. So, why do you believe these things?


2. [3] is the oldest view and the most suppressed / Post 6

First, assuming these claims are true, how is this support for the truth of [3]?

Second, what is the evidence for these two claims being true? I see assertions but no support in post #6.


3. [3] can be true without making the other two false / Post 17

No, it cannot. If [3] is correct, then the other two are falsely experienced as truth, i.e., they are actually false. Yes, they are experienced (where if 1 or 2 are true, 3 will never actually be experienced) but they are false views.


4. Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24 / Post 17 & 24

These don't say anything about creating our next phase of life. They don't come out and directly contradict that belief (it was probably a view that the writer never had in mind to address) but that is different than saying these verses support that belief.


5. Matthew 13:36-43 / Post 17

These verses don't speak of people creating their own afterlife phases of Hell. It says Jesus' angels will gather out of His kingdom the causes of sin and law-breakers, throwing them into the fiery furnace. They don't create their own Hells for themselves.


6. Reports from those who have experienced NDEs and Astral Travel

All of these reports agree with each other on [3] being true?


7. John 8:38 / Post 17

In response to tam, you seemed to refer to this in speaking about Astral Travel and the various universes one could experience, the Creator providing insight into Spirits being in human form. Jesus directly mentions none of these things nor the four claims above as far as I can see, but point out the surrounding verses that do, if you believe they are there.


8. [1] is in conflict with the idea that the Eternal Creator is a person in its own right

While this isn't an argument for [3] being true, I thought I'd still respond to it. This is simply not true. A believer in [1] could assert that a human person is spirit and body, not that all persons are spirit and body.


9. John 1:12-13 / Post 63

You then claim that understanding one is an Eternal Spirit of the Eternal Creator, this realization, is the becoming and power Jesus spoke of.

Here is John 1:12-13 (ESV):

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

It doesn't say those who realized who they were become children of God. It's those who receive Jesus, who believe in His name, that Jesus gives sonship to. We aren't born of blood, nor the flesh's will, nor our will. We are born of God. God does it, not us.


10. The disagreement and battling of camps [1] and [2] shows something is "amiss in the information and subsequent beliefs drawn from the information. The information must therefore be misinformation." / Post 66

First, disagreement over something does not show that both views are wrong. It shows at least one of them is wrong.

Second, [3] disagrees with [1] and [2], so by your principle above [3] (and every view on the subject for that matter) must be misinformation.


11. Matt 10:28 / Post 129

I'm not sure how this is support for [3]. It seems to directly contradict (a) in that soul and body can be destroyed. It doesn't seem to support (b) because it doesn't stop at "but are not able to kill the soul" but goes on to say "but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." It connects soul and body as the one who will be in Hell, it doesn't say the true spirit is inhabiting another bodily form (c) in the afterlife Hell. And regarding (d), it doesn't say one creates their next phase of life, it says another has dominion over them to destroy their soul and body in Hell.


12. Matt 25:46 / Post 129

You seem to imply an admittance that [1] and [2] make better sense of this verse when you state that "Jesus is speaking this to a specific audience who otherwise couldn't hope to accept the greater reality." They couldn't handle the truth, so Jesus had to speak to them in ways that cohere with [1] and [2] better.


13. John 10:31-42 / Post 129

You might be using this verse to support that Jesus chose not to divulge truths He believed because they coudn't handle it and would try to stone Him. But Jesus obviously was willing to teach things they disbelieved because He does it right here.

Or you might be using this for its teaching. Jesus is okay with people being called gods. But that we are Eternal Spirits of the Eternal God isn't what Jesus is saying. Jesus distinguishes Himself from those the Psalmist calls 'gods'. This can be seen in vv. 35-36:

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

There is a distinction made here between those "to whom the word of God came" and "him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world". And the one sent into the world is claiming to be God.