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 tam in post #161]

Then i have no idea what relevance your post had to do with the thread topic Tammy. What point were you trying to make regarding the problem of evil and The Creator dealing with that through whichever position you hold re the thread topic.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #161]

Then i have no idea what relevance your post had to do with the thread topic Tammy. What point were you trying to make regarding the problem of evil and The Creator dealing with that through whichever position you hold re the thread topic.

I simply answered your question William:

That is a picture of the details of a human cell. Does it strike you as logical that The Creator of this remarkable interacting device would find it acceptable solution to 'the problem of evil' as those in positions [1]&[2] expect?

Post 156.

[The Tanager]

2. Questions about my view

That is a picture of the details of a human cell. Does it strike you as logical that The Creator of this remarkable interacting device would find it acceptable solution to 'the problem of evil' as those in positions [1]&[2] expect?

That alone is sufficient evidence that The Creator is far more intricate than said expectations lead us to believe of The Creators Person.

Yes, I think positions [1] and [2] provide logical and acceptable solutions to the problem of evil. What do you find illogical? Lay out the logical argument for us to consider.

[The Tanager]

3. The Biblical Case for Position [3]

Do you think that those in position [3] who understand themselves to be Eternal Spirit, would be concerned about trying to keep their lives? The concept is ridiculous for those of position [3] but not so for those of positions [1]&[2] who now, as then - are the majority.

Those who believe in the truth of [1] and [2] should not be concerned, either.

Which of course, swings back to my saying that this is why Jesus taught what he did to those who might listen. Their beliefs place them in a more protective environment [expectation/belief]

So, to recap, you supported your claim that a particular verse points to the truth of position [3] over [1] and [2] by arguing that those in position [3] would not be concerned about trying to keep their lives, while those in positions [1] and [2] would be. I then respond that those in positions [1] and [2] wouldn't be either. Your response implies that you agree with me. If so, then that undermines your support for your view. How that swings back to actually supporting your view is unclear.

Is there a difference between thinking the Creator is the Life that is us and that the Living Creator makes other things living?

Yes. There is a difference between a human becoming a robot and making a robot that is distinct from her.

Regarding John 8:28, Jesus has just talked about being the light of the world, his coming death, how people must believe Jesus is "he" or they will die in their sins. Regarding John 12:49, Jesus had just been talking about believing in Him, His coming into the world as a light, and that He came to save the world.

Those are outlines, not specifics.

Do you believe Jesus ever taught any specifics?

Then if the creator did not get the Spirit from anywhere, you cannot claim otherwise and still expect your claim to be taken seriously. You need to be able to explain how The Creator created "Spirits" through The Creator creating the human form. Either "Spirit" emerges from the form, or - as the Bible says it, "Spirit" is of The Creator and is The Creator...thus the breath of The Creator which was place into the form from outside of the form is diametrically opposed to emergence theory.

I didn't say the Creator created spirits through creating the human body. God took matter and breathed spiritual life into it. All of it came from God, body and soul. Our spirits and matter are created out of nothing.

It says that those who believe in Jesus are made children of God.

What makes them this way? What allows for them to see that this is what they truly are? I am simply pointing out that it is realization.

And I'm pointing out that you are directly contradicting the verse. The verses say what makes them this way. Here is 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."

This passage doesn't say it's realization. It says Jesus gives it to those who received Him, believing in His name.

Sheep naturally walk different paths. He is saying that there are those [in all three positions] who will inherit the makings of their beliefs.

Which specific verse says that?

Those in [1]&[2] positions are prone to judge [3] as "Not what Jesus was saying" but that does not matter since Jesus is saying that there are those who walk a path unrestricted by religious belief systems who will receive a welcoming acknowledgment, much as with the rich mans son who returned after living his own life his own way and learning therein who he really was.

The prodigal son didn't learn who he really was until after his father restored him to being a son. The son realized he sinned against heaven and his father, no longer worthy to be called a son and came back wanting to be a hired servant. The father had something else in store for him, though, showering love upon the son, bringing him from death to life and the son then lived into that.

Positions [1]&[2] are the 'good son' who stayed at home and did what his father wanted. Position [3] are those who broke the mold and lived to tell others about it.

The younger son was broken by trying to "break the mold". He lived to tell others about it because he returned to the father and the father's ways. The older son is the Pharisees and scribes who missed out on God because of their religion (but not all who had religion missed out on God).

I will remind you that I have never said positions [1]&[2] are untrue. They are incomplete.

This looks like unintentional semantics to me. Position [3] changes [1] from asserting something like "our spirit enters heaven with the Creator for eternity" to [1'] asserting something like "our spirit creates a temporary experience where it thinks it is a spirit entering heaven with the Creator for eternity but that isn't what really is happening because it's not eternal and this God is just a projection of one's own beliefs that will need to be shed and replaced with the truth." If [1'] is true, then [1] is false. Those in position [3] believe something like [1'] is true and that [1] is untrue, whatever phrasing you want to use. What is wrong with my reasoning here?

[The Tanager]

4. The Extra-biblical Case for Position [3]

One example of scientific examination...

The idea of 'remote viewing' itself moves against the idea that we are only products of the form. Rather we are the function within the form.

If you want that information to be discussed you will have to make the arguments here succinctly, then I will respond.

Why think one can take away the individual from the data of experience?

Because the individual [Spirit] is not the data of experience. Is that who you think of yourself as being?

I think that my experiences are a part of who I am, yes. So, why think one can take away the individual from their experiences?

It contradicts your own belief that those who believe in positions [1] and [2] also have those experiences and don't convert to position [3].

I did not say any such thing. Give an example of someone in positions [1]or[2] who would know that they are the ones creating their experience. They do not know this is what is occuring and so cannot undertake the transition to [3] without that knowledge.

You misunderstand. You offered NDEs and OOBEs as support for the truth of position [3]. You then agreed that those who believe in positions [1] and [2] also have had NDEs and OOBEs without converting to position [3]. You think they misunderstand the experiences. So, those in all positions have the experience of NDEs and OOBEs that they themselves would say support their belief, whether it is [1], [2], or [3]. Therefore, NDEs and OOBEs don't support position [3] as true, at least not from what you have shared.

This is why I also spoke about 'Soul Retrievers" in the Astral Planes who work with those in [1]&[2] to try to bring them into the fuller knowledge.

Why do you insist upon cutting away that information and then retort with straw? Argue against what I have actually written not against how you conveniently ignore some parts of what I have actually written in order to then tell me what "I said".

That information is irrelevant to our discussion. I don't agree with you on the points that lead up to this bit above. We disagree earlier in the chain. Thus, we should be talking about those points. If we find agreement on all the prior stuff and I still disagree with this point, at that point we would discuss the truth of the 'Soul Retrievers'.

I'm not playing a dishonest game. I'm trying to understand you and respond to your actual beliefs and assertions. When I misunderstand what you are saying, then simply correct me.

Why do you think the true self must either be spirit or body?

I don't. What I think is that the true self is Spirit, NOT body.

You misunderstand. You think one can either believe the true self is spirit alone or body alone. You, of course, believe the true self is Spirit. I'm asking you why you think the choice is binary. You have offered arguments that I have found very lacking. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. I have responded to all of your arguments, as far as I can see them and understand them. When I miss them or misunderstand them, it is an honest mistake, and I would hope that you would show me charity in that.

[William]

I didn't say the Creator created spirits through creating the human body.

Your position implies that might be the case.

God took matter and breathed spiritual life into it.

How is that not the same as "The Creator placed Spirit into cadavers?"

All of it came from God, body and soul.

Form and Function.

Our spirits and matter are created out of nothing.

Nope. Unless you are arguing that The Creator is 'nothing'....

It says Jesus gives it to those who received Him, believing in His name.

[3] does not dispute that.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of The Creator.

This passage doesn't say it's realization.

How is it that you have yet to realize "of The Creator"...
Is it because you have yet to realize that you are not that which is of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man.

The prodigal son didn't learn who he really was until after his father restored him to being a son. The son realized he sinned against heaven and his father, no longer worthy to be called a son and came back wanting to be a hired servant. The father had something else in store for him, though, showering love upon the son, bringing him from death to life and the son then lived into that.

I said 'much like ' not exactly like.

The younger son was broken by trying to "break the mold". He lived to tell others about it because he returned to the father and the father's ways.

As I wrote - "much like" and this to give contrast to the positions of belief and how those affect the next phase experience. Position [3] is not 'going against The Creators ways'

The [1]&[2] 'miss out' on knowing who they really are because who they think they are distorts their understanding of The Creator. Just as the first son in the story does not know his father, but is still protected by him.

Those in position [3] believe something like [1'] is true and that [1] is untrue, whatever phrasing you want to use. What is wrong with my reasoning here?

It is your reasoning, but not something I have argued.

I thought you were getting it when you used the same expression in a recent post - regarding the difference in something being untrue and something being incomplete.

If knowledge is incomplete, this does not mean that it is untrue.

And that is really the thing. [1]&[2] have yet to come into the knowledge through realization that they are "Of The Creator" not - that which is of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man -"that which was created".

If you want that information to be discussed you will have to make the arguments here succinctly, then I will respond.

You asked for examples of outside of the Bible support for the claim that we are Spirit. [of The Creator] That is what I gave. If you want to discuss that evidence, or find something within it which shows my claim is incorrect, you can do so.

Personally, I find it interesting that the CIA was involved in this research and considered it valid science. The notes I linked are directly to the CIA website achieves.

One can understand by studying that data that the ability of Spirits within human forms to do such has always been part of the history of humankind. The form itself was designed this way...and can act to assist those waking up to who they really are.

Understandably there are 178 pages of data to plow through but it is not really necessary to do so. All that is required is that the data supports other data which is similar in nature - such as the stories people tell about their heavenly or hellish experiences OOB.

These stories are also captured within the Bible.
2 Corinthians 12:2

“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.”

Many cultural stories about 'heavens' abound and are experiences are quiet similar in nature, no matter the culture.
https://www.compellingtruth.org/seven-heavens.html

They are all related to the Astral Planes

For the most part, the Astral Planes are the result of the imaging of Spirits who have been within physical forms. They are contained within an area designated by The Creator - for that purpose.

I think that my experiences are a part of who I am, yes.

And I think that who I am is not the same as what experience who I am has.

So, why think one can take away the individual from their experiences?

Who is arguing that? What I am arguing is that I [the individual Spirit] am not my experiences. Nor are you or anyone else.
I am arguing that it is an incomplete understanding of ones self - to self identify as being the experiences.

Experiences are only data. We are not data. We are "Of The Creator".

I don't agree with you on the points that lead up to this bit above. We disagree earlier in the chain. Thus, we should be talking about those points.

So first up we need to come to agreement regarding the breath of The Creator. Until that is agree to, any other information is unable to be discussed between us... but that does not mean that I cannot link you to data which helps verify what I am talking about.
It just means that you cannot "accept the data as true" while you remain in your contrary position of self identification.

That's what it gets down to.

Jesus himself was an Archetype "Soul Retriever".

So I wrote a fictional character [based upon stories shared by those who have had OOBEs and reported their experiences] named Jay, who was an atheist before his conversion to Christianity [[1]&[2] positions of belief].

Now I write of "Bob" who was a Christian when he passed into the next phase, and he experienced [for the most part] what he expected to experience according to his beliefs.

In this case he believed that he was in heaven with his God and all the folk he expected to be there enjoying eternal life together.

At some point into Bobs next phase experience, a Soul Retriever [Sally] visits him and explains that what Bob is experiencing is Bobs own creation.

Bob resists this knowledge as "being of the devil" and even when Sally askes him to explain then why 'The Devil" is allowed into heaven to tell Bob this information, Bob remains adamant and demands that Sally leaves.

Sally leaves, promising to return again.

Sally understands Bobs conflict because Sally was once in Bobs position and was visited by a Soul Retriever [Jimmy] and reacted in a similar manner. Small steps into change...eventually Jimmy was able to convince Sally to 'come and have a look' at what was beyond the walls of her heavenly creation. Sally had much to process, but eventually she accepted the truth and dismantled her creation...

Sally then chose to become a Soul Retriever for the experience and in gratitude. She was helping rather than hiding.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to William in post #1]
A person's spirit is (1) the breath of life that makes him alive ("The expression 'breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ru'ach), of life]' (Genesis 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air, with its oxygen, that the life-force, or 'spirit,' in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature's body.) (2) [A person's spirit is also] his impelling mental inclination. The force that causes a person to display a certain attitude or emotion or to take a certain action or course. (Someone might say, "That person just sits around; he has no spirit." Or when someone happily dances around, "That's the spirit!!")

So, a person doesn't have a spirit "mini-me" inside that leaves the body at death. What leaves is the force of life that kept him alive. His "impelling mental inclination" died with him.

There is no immediate "after-life." When a person dies he no longer exists except in the mind of God who remembers the person. He would then participate in the Resurrection that Jesus promised, at some later time. (John 5:28; John 6:40,44)

[William]

[Replying to William in post #1]
A person's spirit is (1) the breath of life that makes him alive ("The expression 'breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ru'ach), of life]' (Genesis 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air, with its oxygen, that the life-force, or 'spirit,' in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature's body.) (2) [A person's spirit is also] his impelling mental inclination.

If that is the case then Panentheism is correct and the Earth can be said to be a living entity which created form and 'breathed life into those forms.
This is exactly what paganism believed before organized religion came to dominate and dictate what people 'should' believe.

The force that causes a person to display a certain attitude or emotion or to take a certain action or course. (Someone might say, "That person just sits around; he has no spirit." Or when someone happily dances around, "That's the spirit!!")

This delegates "Spirit" to that of "personality" In that, one needn't bother arguing 'things of the Spirit' [Such as The Creator] because all is self contained through emergence theory. Therefore 'no need to bring in the 'supernatural' in order to explain what exists.

So, a person doesn't have a spirit "mini-me" inside that leaves the body at death.

Which is what Christians in position [2] believe...

What leaves is the force of life that kept him alive.

What is this 'force of life' other than the ability to breath air, as you argue it is. Therefore air hasn't left the body, but rather the body stops functioning and thus does not breathe any more air. If this 'force of life' is as you say, then you are simply speaking of oxygen, rather than any entity spirit.

His "impelling mental inclination" died with him.

Emergence theory. If you believe this to be true, then you are not a theist.

When a person dies he no longer exists except in the mind of God who remembers the person. He would then participate in the Resurrection that Jesus promised, at some later time. (John 5:28; John 6:40,44)

Thus this 'force of life' you argue is oxygen has somehow now transformed into you arguing it is data which The Creator stores and later places into some other form. In that you are arguing that it is the forms which are the living things, and that data is placed into those forms in order to give those forms a sense of having existed prior to being 'made alive' or you are arguing that it is the data which is the living thing and when placed into form, it makes the form not only alive, but equipped with past experience.

[3] is far less complicated as it simple say's that Spirit is the living ingredient. That which animates form. Not that 'we' have 'spirits', but rather we are Spirit.
The data of experience is not the living thing either. It is how The Creator 'stores' memory - within Spirit. Individuate Spirits are the entities which store/contain the information [data of experience] but are not themselves that data.

There is no immediate "after-life."

On the contrary. If, for example, you believe that you are the flesh and 'sometime down the track' that you will be 'resurrected' and data of experience placed back into you so that you the flesh have 'personality' and that even if that 'sometime down the track' amounts to a million of earth years in time, for you, it will just seem to be an 'immediate afterlife' as the amount of 'time' between dying and being resurrected is not experienced by 'you' in this condition.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to William in post #1]
A person's spirit is (1) the breath of life that makes him alive ("The expression 'breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ru'ach), of life]' (Genesis 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air, with its oxygen, that the life-force, or 'spirit,' in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature's body.) (2) [A person's spirit is also] his impelling mental inclination.

If that is the case then Panentheism is correct and the Earth can be said to be a living entity which created form and 'breathed life into those forms.
This is exactly what paganism believed before organized religion came to dominate and dictate what people 'should' believe.

The force that causes a person to display a certain attitude or emotion or to take a certain action or course. (Someone might say, "That person just sits around; he has no spirit." Or when someone happily dances around, "That's the spirit!!")

This delegates "Spirit" to that of "personality" In that, one needn't bother arguing 'things of the Spirit' [Such as The Creator] because all is self contained through emergence theory. Therefore 'no need to bring in the 'supernatural' in order to explain what exists.

So, a person doesn't have a spirit "mini-me" inside that leaves the body at death.

Which is what Christians in position [2] believe...

What leaves is the force of life that kept him alive.

What is this 'force of life' other than the ability to breath air, as you argue it is. Therefore air hasn't left the body, but rather the body stops functioning and thus does not breathe any more air. If this 'force of life' is as you say, then you are simply speaking of oxygen, rather than any entity spirit.

His "impelling mental inclination" died with him.

Emergence theory. If you believe this to be true, then you are not a theist.

When a person dies he no longer exists except in the mind of God who remembers the person. He would then participate in the Resurrection that Jesus promised, at some later time. (John 5:28; John 6:40,44)

Thus this 'force of life' you argue is oxygen has somehow now transformed into you arguing it is data which The Creator stores and later places into some other form. In that you are arguing that it is the forms which are the living things, and that data is placed into those forms in order to give those forms a sense of having existed prior to being 'made alive' or you are arguing that it is the data which is the living thing and when placed into form, it makes the form not only alive, but equipped with past experience.

[3] is far less complicated as it simple say's that Spirit is the living ingredient. That which animates form. Not that 'we' have 'spirits', but rather we are Spirit.
The data of experience is not the living thing either. It is how The Creator 'stores' memory - within Spirit. Individuate Spirits are the entities which store/contain the information [data of experience] but are not themselves that data.

There is no immediate "after-life."

On the contrary. If, for example, you believe that you are the flesh and 'sometime down the track' that you will be 'resurrected' and data of experience placed back into you so that you the flesh have 'personality' and that even if that 'sometime down the track' amounts to a million of earth years in time, for you, it will just seem to be an 'immediate afterlife' as the amount of 'time' between dying and being resurrected is not experienced by 'you' in this condition.

It is true, the breath of life is given to all of the animate creation. The "spirit" is the same for all. "There is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit." (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

Your last comment about the "after-life" is right on the money. "It will just seem to be an 'immediate afterlife' as the amount of time between dying and being resurrected is not experienced by you in this condition." Would that other people could get this fact. Then they would understand what "absent from the body [of flesh] is present with the Lord" means.

Thank you for your comment.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #170]

"It will just seem to be an 'immediate afterlife' as the amount of time between dying and being resurrected is not experienced by you in this condition." Would that other people could get this fact. Then they would understand what "absent from the body [of flesh] is present with the Lord" means.

You do a disservice to others by implying that the don't understand a simple enough concept.
Rather, what is not being understood by those in both positions [1]&[2] is that it does not matter, so why are they arguing about it at all?

The answer will have to do with the different expectations the believers have as to what they will be experiencing when they leave this phase and instantly begin to experience the next...