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]?

[The Tanager]

2. The Case against positions [1] and [2]

You have claimed that positions [1] and [2] don't provide acceptable solutions to the problem of evil. Do you have an actual argument you can lay out for me to consider that claim?



3. The Biblical Case for Position [3]

You didn't respond to this question:

Do you believe Jesus ever taught any specifics?

God took matter and breathed spiritual life into it.

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

Why would it matter if it was the same?

Our spirits and matter are created out of nothing.

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

Why do you think spirits and matter were created out of the 'substance' (for lack of a better word) of the Creator?

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.

Why think being "born of God" equates to "realizing one is the Spirit of the Creator?" John doesn't directly make that connection.



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

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.

Everyone that believes in these NDEs and OOBEs do not come to the same conclusion as you or each other. There are multiple views that encompass such things. Thus, they are not support for your view unless you can lay out the logic that separates your view from theirs.

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...

I am swayed by reason, not simply by you explaining what your view is, even through story.

[William]

Hence, I see Biblical contradictions as a red flag to tread very cautiously and not to believe everything you read in the Bible. . . . . . . . if anything all

I do not believe it's an either/or situation. It's not either everything in the Bible is factually correct or nothing is factually correct. Unfortunately though, many people hold to this position, including both Christians and non-Christians.

I think the first thing that has to be addressed is the doctrine of inerrancy. Don't want to hash it out all again, but it is discussed in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?. Bottom line, it's possible to believe the Bible is authoritative without the need to be an inerrantist.

Another issue is the Greek/western way of thinking. The western mind typically puts things in an either/or box. Something is either in box A or in box B. Things need to be logical. In the eastern mind, things can exist which seem contrary to each other. Things do not have to be logical.

An example of this is light. A western mindset would have more difficulty accepting light is both a wave and a particle. An eastern mindset would more easily accept it. Pioneers of quantum mechanics such as Heisenberg were influenced by eastern philosophy, even though he was a devout Christian:

Heisenberg admired Eastern philosophy and saw parallels between it and quantum mechanics, describing himself as in "complete agreement" with the book The Tao of Physics. Heisenberg even went as far to state that after conversations with Rabindranath Tagore about Indian philosophy "some of the ideas that seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_He ... _worldview

Another example is something I was discussing with someone I met at church. A western mindset would have more difficulty accepting it's possible for people in the church to accept different political, racial, ideological positions and still be one unified church body. In the eastern mindset, it would be easier to accept the fact that a Democrat and a Republican can sit in the same pew.

The above is a good reason as to why Christianity mostly consists of individuals in either [1]or[2] positions [or a mix of both] rather than [3].

For someone of Eastern ways of thinking, [3] would be far more easy to accept logically.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #172]

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...

I am swayed by reason, not simply by you explaining what your view is, even through story

That is your way of saying that my explanations are 'unreasonable' according to you. See my last post as a reasonable explanation as to why that is the case.
Your mind has been trained through the device of Western logic, and as such, [3] is 'unreasonable' to you, as are any explanations and stories associated with [3].

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #174]

Yes, your support for your position seems unreasonable to me. If the eastern mindset is fine being illogical, then all the worse for the eastern mindset. In my studies, however, it's too simplistic to say there is the eastern mindset.

[William]

Our spirits and matter are created out of nothing.

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

Why do you think spirits and matter were created out of the 'substance' (for lack of a better word) of the Creator?

It is logical.

For The Creator to have created something out of nothing, then nothing must be equal to The Creator as something which has existed for eternity, yet is outside The Creator.

Therefore it is better to argue that everything exists within The Mind of The Creator rather than attempt to argue that The Creator created everything from 'nothing'.



Also as mentioned in my prior posts, He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

One Creator of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. There is no separation that is real. Realization is the key.

[William]

Galatians 4:21 - 4:31

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Clearly those who think of themselves as the body, are under the law and are thus "Children of The Bondwoman".

Position [3] is where those who realize they are Spirit [aspects of The Creator] rather than personalities derived of the flesh, are the "Children of the Freewoman"

[The Tanager]

Why do you think spirits and matter were created out of the 'substance' (for lack of a better word) of the Creator?

It is logical.

For The Creator to have created something out of nothing, then nothing must be equal to The Creator as something which has existed for eternity, yet is outside The Creator.

Therefore it is better to argue that everything exists within The Mind of The Creator rather than attempt to argue that The Creator created everything from 'nothing'.

Sorry for the later reply. I was camping with the family again.

The Creator logically could have created a 'substance' distinct from its own 'substance' out of nothing (i.e., where that other-substance didn't exist before). Such a substance would, obviously, not be eternal, by definition. This would not have made "the absence of the other-substance prior to its existence" equal to the Creator. There was nothing there to be equal to the Creator. Nor would its existence, after coming to be, make it equal to the Creator.

Clearly those who think of themselves as the body, are under the law and are thus "Children of The Bondwoman".

Position [3] is where those who realize they are Spirit [aspects of The Creator] rather than personalities derived of the flesh, are the "Children of the Freewoman"

Paul shows his concern for the Galatians who have come to "know God-or rather are known by God" but are turning back to observing special days, months, seasons, years (Gal 4:9-10) because other people are saying those things still need to be done (Gal 4:17). That's the context of what it means to be "under the law". Paul isn't categorizing people the way you are. You are reading that into the text. If you believe that is true, fine, but Paul didn't.

Paul then says that if they want to be under the law, then they should pay attention to what it says. Paul distinguishes Sarah and Abraham trying to do things their own way (self-realization) versus God's way (the promise). Following the law leads to slavery and God's way leads to freedom.

The passage continues: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Paul says don't trust in circumcision (5:2-3) or being justified by the law (5:5). What counts is faith (5:6). There isn't a body/Spirit dichotomy like you want to read into Paul here.

Paul continues to contrast indulging one's flesh and living by the Spirit. Yet, living by the Spirit means following God's way. It involves bodily things: serving one another (5:13), love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control (5:22). The body isn't talked about being done away with; it's still a part of who we are. When talking about the Spirit there is no talk of leaving the body behind. It's all about what to do in this bodily life.

Paul doesn't boast in his self-realization. He only will boast in the cross of Jesus (6:14), a very bodily act indeed. Paul even bears on his own body the "marks of Jesus" (6:17). He's not anti-body. He's anti-living by one's flesh, which is not the same thing as a body. It's the selfish, evil desires we have.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #178]

The Creator logically could have created a 'substance' distinct from its own 'substance' out of nothing (i.e., where that other-substance didn't exist before).

No. That is not logical. Something [substance] cannot come from nothing [non substance].
We both know of the argument non-theists make regarding the universe as possibly popping into existence out of nowhere/nothing and adding a creator to that process doesn't somehow make it possible.
Rather, creation is all in the Mind of The Creator and as such can be explored, tweaked, given massive do-over or deleted depending on - ultimately - what The Creator chooses.
I know that common Christian thinking has tried to deal with the problem of evil by separating The Creator from the creation and then idolizing the image created through that and worshiping said image...
...but that only wraps the problem up in some then-acceptable package and creates immense waste as the large number of unbelievers are consigned to various fates, while the minority who 'made the grade' are 'saved'.
[3] is a far better solution to the problem of evil for it allows for all to eventually reestablish themselves as particles of Creator-Consciousness as they come to the realization that they are not and never were whatever it is they previously thought themselves to be.

Paul shows his concern for the Galatians who have come to "know God-or rather are known by God" but are turning back to observing special days, months, seasons, years (Gal 4:9-10) because other people are saying those things still need to be done (Gal 4:17). That's the context of what it means to be "under the law". Paul isn't categorizing people the way you are. You are reading that into the text. If you believe that is true, fine, but Paul didn't.

Perhaps Paul didn't think it through to those lengths, which is not surprising as he did not have as much information as we, today, have.
While individuals remain anchored in thoughts which prohibit their movement and are loath to let go of false identity, they will always be under some law or another - of their own 'free will' which itself is shaped and influenced by their own [false] identity. The next phase will amplify that process, giving them exactly what they expect [believe] they will get and if they do not understand that it is they who create those things for themselves, then they have yet to realize that they are particles of Creator-Consciousness because they are still clinging to the false image of themselves.

[The Tanager]

No. That is not logical. Something [substance] cannot come from nothing [non substance].
We both know of the argument non-theists make regarding the universe as possibly popping into existence out of nowhere/nothing and adding a creator to that process doesn't somehow make it possible.

In creatio ex nihilo the Creator is the cause of a new substance. In that sense, something isn't coming from nothing, it's coming from the Creator. It's just not of the same substance as the Creator. That isn't illogical. Yes, metaphorically, it's illogical for "magic" to occur uncaused. It's not illogical for "magic" to occur because a magician is performing it.

[3] is a far better solution to the problem of evil for it allows for all to eventually reestablish themselves as particles of Creator-Consciousness as they come to the realization that they are not and never were whatever it is they previously thought themselves to be.

It seems to me that [3] doesn't think evil is a problem at all. It's either that what we call evil isn't evil at all or the Creator has deluded itself into thinking evil exists when it doesn't. Neither is a good answer to the problem of evil.

Perhaps Paul didn't think it through to those lengths, which is not surprising as he did not have as much information as we, today, have.
While individuals remain anchored in thoughts which prohibit their movement and are loath to let go of false identity, they will always be under some law or another - of their own 'free will' which itself is shaped and influenced by their own [false] identity. The next phase will amplify that process, giving them exactly what they expect [believe] they will get and if they do not understand that it is they who create those things for themselves, then they have yet to realize that they are particles of Creator-Consciousness because they are still clinging to the false image of themselves.

My point is that it's not what Paul (or any Biblical author) was writing. Your view may be true but it's not Biblical.

[William]

No. That is not logical. Something [substance] cannot come from nothing [non substance].
We both know of the argument non-theists make regarding the universe as possibly popping into existence out of nowhere/nothing and adding a creator to that process doesn't somehow make it possible.

In creatio ex nihilo the Creator is the cause of a new substance. In that sense, something isn't coming from nothing, it's coming from the Creator. It's just not of the same substance as the Creator. That isn't illogical. Yes, metaphorically, it's illogical for "magic" to occur uncaused. It's not illogical for "magic" to occur because a magician is performing it.

It is illogical to assume that the magician actually produced something from nothing or for someone to bring a thing into somewhere by claiming that it came from nowhere.

Your argument is forced 'logic' based upon the premise that The Creator is separate from the creation and that premise itself is forced based on the premise that The Creator is 'good', so if there are 'evil' things in the creation, those who think so have to somehow separate The Creator from the creation, thereby making out The Creator is a magician who created things from nothing.
As we know, 'things' of themselves are neither good nor evil...but that which animates those things, apparently can be.

[3] is a far better solution to the problem of evil for it allows for all to eventually reestablish themselves as particles of Creator-Consciousness as they come to the realization that they are not and never were whatever it is they previously thought themselves to be.

It seems to me that [3] doesn't think evil is a problem at all.

The Problem of Evil

From the link;

The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

That is the context in which the phrase is being used.
And yes - [3] does fix The Problem of Evil.

It's either that what we call evil isn't evil at all or the Creator has deluded itself into thinking evil exists when it doesn't. Neither is a good answer to the problem of evil.

Where in [3] do either of those things present?

Which is more likely {a}"that which we call evil isn't evil at all" or {b}"The Creator has deluded itself into thinking evil exists when it doesn't"?

Perhaps Paul didn't think it through to those lengths, which is not surprising as he did not have as much information as we, today, have.
While individuals remain anchored in thoughts which prohibit their movement and are loath to let go of false identity, they will always be under some law or another - of their own 'free will' which itself is shaped and influenced by their own [false] identity. The next phase will amplify that process, giving them exactly what they expect [believe] they will get and if they do not understand that it is they who create those things for themselves, then they have yet to realize that they are particles of Creator-Consciousness because they are still clinging to the false image of themselves.

My point is that it's not what Paul (or any Biblical author) was writing. Your view may be true but it's not Biblical.

And my point [throughout] is that the Bible can indeed be interpreted from these three positions. Mostly the authors are dealing with people already under the influence of false beliefs to which attempts are made to bring those ones out from under the assumptions those beliefs manufacture. This particular phase is part of a larger process which extends into the next phase - and safe accommodation is created for many - due to the beliefs they held but couldn't/wouldn't let go of [build upon] - be they Catholic beliefs or Jehovah's Witness beliefs or any of the various beliefs which have evolved through biblical interpretation, yours included.

But as I thought we had already somewhat agreed upon, until we can come to the same understanding as to what 'the breath of The Creator" is - we will be unable to agree on all that follows...for it is not the things of creation but that which animates the things of creation, which is Life.