-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
I am going to suggest that debating or deciding this and other matters (e.g. divorce, young earth creationism) by "battling passages" is ultimately not that constructive. To build a word-view based on such a "narrow" approach seems unwise to me. On such a view, Scripture is seen is as the sole informing source of truth and what's more, positions are frequently defended by "quoting a verse" rather than by the more difficult approach of looking at the Scriptures as a whole and discerning principles that more or less survive despite some problems (e.g. the occasional contradictory passage). Or by considering (gulp, shudder, dare-I-say-it) extra-Biblical arguments.
Of course, individual passages from the Scriptures do have merit, but they should be part of a more "holistic" approach to determining truth. As to the immortality of the soul, I certainly see how the text Free has quoted is consistent with a dualist position. Nevertheless, I think it may also be consistent with a non-dualist view. Jesus could be separating "body" from "soul" for metaphorical purposes - in the same way we talk about "head" vs "heart". When I say "I believe X in my head but not in my heart", I am not suggesting a literal internal duality to my nature.
In any event, I still see the force of guibox's claim about the lack of a dualistic conception in the Hebrew world. My general sense of the Old Testament is that the body-soul distinction is curiously absent. Now there are, of course, exceptions like the text in Eccelesiastes 12:7 (then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it). But, it seems that we have to face the fact that the Bible does have seeming internal inconsistencies (e.g. the exception clause for divorce given in Matthew that is not present in Mark). And what about the "sheeps vs the goats" text in Matthew 25 that, to me, suggests a "salvation by works" perspective. So truth must be discerned by a more global analysis.
Besides, I also think that there is nothing wrong in bringing "philosophical" arguments to bear on this and other questions. I see the "interaction" problem as likely a fatal flaw to dualism (at least as it is generally conceived). I realize that the "unitary" view of mankind may be an incomplete picture but there is a difference between an incomplete picture and one that is internally inconsistent. A lot more could be said and I do not, for a minute, claim to be anything more than an "armchair philsopher".
I know that Free supports dualism, but I am curious as to precisely why. Guibox, have you ever considered extra-Biblical arguments to supplement your Biblical arguments against immortality of the soul?
Of course, individual passages from the Scriptures do have merit, but they should be part of a more "holistic" approach to determining truth. As to the immortality of the soul, I certainly see how the text Free has quoted is consistent with a dualist position. Nevertheless, I think it may also be consistent with a non-dualist view. Jesus could be separating "body" from "soul" for metaphorical purposes - in the same way we talk about "head" vs "heart". When I say "I believe X in my head but not in my heart", I am not suggesting a literal internal duality to my nature.
In any event, I still see the force of guibox's claim about the lack of a dualistic conception in the Hebrew world. My general sense of the Old Testament is that the body-soul distinction is curiously absent. Now there are, of course, exceptions like the text in Eccelesiastes 12:7 (then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it). But, it seems that we have to face the fact that the Bible does have seeming internal inconsistencies (e.g. the exception clause for divorce given in Matthew that is not present in Mark). And what about the "sheeps vs the goats" text in Matthew 25 that, to me, suggests a "salvation by works" perspective. So truth must be discerned by a more global analysis.
Besides, I also think that there is nothing wrong in bringing "philosophical" arguments to bear on this and other questions. I see the "interaction" problem as likely a fatal flaw to dualism (at least as it is generally conceived). I realize that the "unitary" view of mankind may be an incomplete picture but there is a difference between an incomplete picture and one that is internally inconsistent. A lot more could be said and I do not, for a minute, claim to be anything more than an "armchair philsopher".
I know that Free supports dualism, but I am curious as to precisely why. Guibox, have you ever considered extra-Biblical arguments to supplement your Biblical arguments against immortality of the soul?
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,415
- 5,889
But then the question needs to be asked, "What is the 'heart' in the Bible?" How is it that out of the overflow of a man's heart the mought speaks? How is it that man's heart is wicked beyond cure? How has God written his law on man's heart? Etc.Drew said:
Then I wonder where Jews get their belief in dualism from. Regardless, I see much of dualism in the OT, it's just not as obvious. For instance, read Job and see how he uses 'soul', or read through the Psalms and note the way in which David used the term 'soul'.Drew said:
And this leads to a point I made earlier in the thread, namely that those who argue against dualism often overlook or ignore the nuances of the term 'soul'.
Because of what I have found through both Scriptural and philosophical inquiry. I find that the difficulty of interactionism, which really is not a problem for the Christian at all, is a lesser problem than the problems that arise from a non-dualist perspective.Drew said:
Free said:
Let me reiterate it. The Bible doesn't support the dualistic concept of separate entities that exist outside of the other. The 'soul' is the essence of life. The two are directly tied together. The body is a living soul. When the body dies, the life ceases as well.
As far as Matthew 10 goes, our physical death is not the complete end of life. There is a resurrection. Man has no part in that resurrection or death thereafter. It is strictly in God's hands. So as man can destroy my body now, it is my eternal life that God can take away if He so chooses as our ultimate destiny is what we should 'fear'.
Were this text any proof of an immortal soul, we see that it can be destroyed. If the soul CAN be destroyed by God it is not truly immortal, and if God chooses to NOT destroy it, but allow it to continue burning for trillions of years in hell, then He is a cruel tyrant.
Drew said:
As many as I can find to support my belief, there are many more arguments that favor immortality of the soul. Therefore it is the Bible that must be my sole authority. If it agrees or disagrees with other philosophies, then so be it. I believe most philosophies on the immortality of the soul have been influenced by Greek dualism. How can any philosophies 'prove' the immortality of the soul as it must be based on basic assumptions that are taken for granted as true? Hence the reason why I base my authority on the Word of He that created man.
And I completely agree with you, Drew on the fact that the Bible must be taken as a whole and not singled out into specific texts. Many texts can be used out of context or ambiguous texts can be used to support a presupposition though they contradict other texts.
Taking a step back and looking at the salvation history of man, we see that both the OT and NT support the hope of resurrection to life eternal at the end of the age and not eternal life at death through the medium of an immortal substance outside the body. To believe so is to not only contradict the clear teaching of scripture, but to also create a myriad of illogical inconsistencies and redundancy. It also forces one to move further and further away from the scripture building their views on one assumption after another.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,415
- 5,889
According to you. According to me, the Bibile does support a dualistic concept.guibox said:
Again, this is a very narrow definition which is not based on all the uses of 'soul' in Scripture.guibox said:
A couple of problems: (1) the resurrection is not in view here - that is not the context; (2) a plain reading of the text indicates that the soul is separate from the body. If, as you stated, that life ceases when the body dies, this would mean that the soul dies when the body dies. But according to Matt. 10:28, man can kill the body but not the soul, only God can kill the soul. This makes no sense if 'soul' simply means "living being".guibox said:
This is fallacious reasoning. If God created the soul, whether immortal or not, he certainly has the power to destroy it. This does not mean that the soul is therefore not immortal. You have just given in to the "God-can-build-a-rock-so-big-that-he-cannot-lift-it" argument. Note also that the text doesn't say that God will destroy the soul in hell, only that he can (it is possible for him to do so).guibox said:
As for God being a "cruel tyrant" for sending people to eternal punishment in hell, that is your opinion. And I think that it is wrong too. But that is another discussion and I don't want to get sidetracked.
Free said:
What? The souls under the altar, Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8? All these texts have been addressed and in the grand scope of the scriptures do not support a dualistic concept unless you read it into them. As was said before, the WHOLE of scripture supports the wholistic view of man and immortality at the resurrection.
Free said:
No it doesn't. It merely says that there are two different concepts. It is your preconceived notion that the soul exists outside the body and is some ethereal substance of man that makes you think it is 'separate from the body'. Despite the 'broad' view you desire to take on the meaning of 'soul', the Bible doesn't support it linguistically. The 'soul' is 'life'. To the Hebrews it was the essence of man. The 'heart' the 'seat of emotion', all of these are used by the term 'soul'. Nowhere in the scriptures does this part of man survive death or become the eternal existence of man outside the body. It's not there, Free.
Free said:
You cannot get around the fact that there are two lives, our physical and our eternal. When we die, we are not truly dead in an eternal sense. Hence, man can take our physical life but not our eternal. You have to interpret it this way in applying our 'deaths' to both man and God. Even though man can kill my body, he has no say on my eternal fate, only God does.
The only qualification to eternal life that the Bible gives is our hope in resurrection to life. If we do not raise to life as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55, then 'we are yet in our sins and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished' (vs 18). It is only by God's power that we are risen for without the resurrection there is no life. Therefore, the resurrection is a factor in interpreting this verse.
When you rightly interpret the 'soul' as 'the living being', the 'life' of man, we see that Matthew 10 makes perfect sense. Man cannot destroy our eternal life, only our body. He has no say in our 'afterlife', only God does.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,415
- 5,889
Again, so says you. I say that on the contrary, the WHOLE of Scripture supports the dualistic view of man. :-?guibox said:
And it is your preconceived notion that the soul is merely man being a living being that makes you think it is 'not separate from the body'. :-? There is nothing to indicate that these are 'two different concepts'.guibox said:
So, then, please explain this contradiction you are faced with: man kills the body, which, according to your position results in the death of the soul, yet, they cannot kill the soul, only God can. The text is clear - either, according to your position, when man kills the body he kills the soul as well, or, according to my position, man can kill the body but not the soul. You are dancing around and avoiding the obvious problem this causes for you.
There, you have just contradicted yourself and supported my definition of 'soul'. It is much more than just 'life'. According to you, the 'soul' is the 'heart' is the 'seat of emotion' and they all are simply mean 'life' or 'living being'.guibox said:
I asked these questions of Drew, but they fit here, so perhaps you can respond to them in light of the above:
The questions need to be asked, "What is the 'heart' in the Bible?" How is it that out of the overflow of a man's heart the mought speaks? How is it that man's heart is wicked beyond cure? How has God written his law on man's heart? Etc.
And I could go on. I just might do that later.
As I pointed out above, it would make no sense whatsoever. Eternal life is not even in view here. You are obviously reading into the text a meaning that is not warranted.guibox said:
Free said:
"But fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell"
This verse is a warning call to the wicked, so the wicked must have this 'soul'.
Now the term 'hell' here is 'gehenna' where the fire at the end of time are raging. This is brought out in Revelation 20. Nowhere are the wicked's 'immortal souls' cast into the fire. Rather we see that 'death and Hades' gave up the dead that are in them' and all who 'were not written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death'.
The dead are resurrected whole and cast in. No disembodied souls receive some sort of punishment. Rather the whole man is cast in and destroyed (or burned forever, whatever you desire).
We see that only the righteous have eternal life as a gift from God (Romans 6:23) the wicked do not.
Therefore, this verse cannot apply to some sort of disembodied, living essence because the wicked do not have one. They are sinful and still suffer the wages of sin which is the OPPOSITE of eternal life (immortality)
i.e., even if you believed that the righteous' souls went to heaven at death, you cannot give that same immortality to the wicked.
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
Please consider the following definitions:
Substance dualism, such as traditional Cartesian dualism (Descartes 1644), asserts the existence of both physical and non-physical substances. Such theories entail the existence of non-physical minds or selves as entities in which consciousness inheres. Though substance dualism is at present largely out of favor, it does have some contemporary proponents.
Property dualism in its several versions enjoys a greater level of current support. All such theories assert the existence of conscious properties that are neither identical with nor reducible to physical properties but which may nonetheless be instantiated by the very same things that instantiate physical properties. In that respect they might be classified as dual aspect theories. They take some parts of reality  organisms, brains, neural states or processes  to instantiate properties of two distinct and disjoint sorts: physical ones and conscious, phenomenal or qualitative ones.
Just to be more specific to where I am coming from, I am much more sympathetic to property dualism than to substance dualism. Free, do either of these versions of dualism match with your view? I am going to assume that you like substance dualism. Tell me if I am wrong. You said in an earlier post that the "interaction" issue is not a problem for Christians. Why is this?
Guibox, you have asked "How can any philosophies 'prove' the immortality of the soul as it must be based on basic assumptions that are taken for granted as true? Hence the reason why I base my authority on the Word of He that created man." I do not see that the "necessary circularity" that I think you are claiming. One can approach the problem without an a priori commitment. I think that there are a number of reasons to embrace property dualism that are not circular in nature, although they certainly do meet the demanding standard of a "proof". They are too complex to go into here (maybe in some later post if anybody is interested). I get the impression that you are not much for expanding the scope of arguments to include non-Biblical arguments. Nevertheless, would you say the above definition of property dualism might characterize your view of the nature of man (i.e. he has a "unitary" nature which is manifested by "physical" and "soul-like" properties)?
Substance dualism, such as traditional Cartesian dualism (Descartes 1644), asserts the existence of both physical and non-physical substances. Such theories entail the existence of non-physical minds or selves as entities in which consciousness inheres. Though substance dualism is at present largely out of favor, it does have some contemporary proponents.
Property dualism in its several versions enjoys a greater level of current support. All such theories assert the existence of conscious properties that are neither identical with nor reducible to physical properties but which may nonetheless be instantiated by the very same things that instantiate physical properties. In that respect they might be classified as dual aspect theories. They take some parts of reality  organisms, brains, neural states or processes  to instantiate properties of two distinct and disjoint sorts: physical ones and conscious, phenomenal or qualitative ones.
Just to be more specific to where I am coming from, I am much more sympathetic to property dualism than to substance dualism. Free, do either of these versions of dualism match with your view? I am going to assume that you like substance dualism. Tell me if I am wrong. You said in an earlier post that the "interaction" issue is not a problem for Christians. Why is this?
Guibox, you have asked "How can any philosophies 'prove' the immortality of the soul as it must be based on basic assumptions that are taken for granted as true? Hence the reason why I base my authority on the Word of He that created man." I do not see that the "necessary circularity" that I think you are claiming. One can approach the problem without an a priori commitment. I think that there are a number of reasons to embrace property dualism that are not circular in nature, although they certainly do meet the demanding standard of a "proof". They are too complex to go into here (maybe in some later post if anybody is interested). I get the impression that you are not much for expanding the scope of arguments to include non-Biblical arguments. Nevertheless, would you say the above definition of property dualism might characterize your view of the nature of man (i.e. he has a "unitary" nature which is manifested by "physical" and "soul-like" properties)?
O
Orthodox Christian
Guest
- Thread starter
- #50
John 10:28
The tense of "I give" (kago) is present tense, and the "eternal life" (zoin aionion) is indeed life without end.
John 11:26
I wonder where they think Elijah, Moses, Enoch, and the saints resurrected at the crucifixion are sleeping now?
These same would assure us that we should read the vision of the Transfiguration figuratively, the vision of St John of the martyrs under the altar figuratively, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man figuratively, the assurance of Jesus to the thief on the cross that he would enter Paradise 'today' figuratively, but we should read the cynical ranting of Ecclesiastes 9 literally as doctrine. Yes, they love to quote the irrelevance of verse 5 (the dead know nothing) yet do not quote verse 11 as truth:
Yes, there's the cynic's gospel: it's all CHANCE.
Go ahead, quote Ecclesiastes 9 again to me as if it was a line from Proverbs. Rightly divided word? Hardly. Ecclesiastes is a book of philosophy, not theology, and is to be considered from that perspective. The Gospels, however, are books of theology, or figuratively, the new stone tablets.
Jesus tells us clearly "I am the Resurrection and the Life" in response to 'yes, I believe we will be raised in the last day.' Life is now, the Kingdom of God is within you, and we are more than dirt.
The tense of "I give" (kago) is present tense, and the "eternal life" (zoin aionion) is indeed life without end.
John 11:26
But the soul sleep adherents do not
I wonder where they think Elijah, Moses, Enoch, and the saints resurrected at the crucifixion are sleeping now?
These same would assure us that we should read the vision of the Transfiguration figuratively, the vision of St John of the martyrs under the altar figuratively, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man figuratively, the assurance of Jesus to the thief on the cross that he would enter Paradise 'today' figuratively, but we should read the cynical ranting of Ecclesiastes 9 literally as doctrine. Yes, they love to quote the irrelevance of verse 5 (the dead know nothing) yet do not quote verse 11 as truth:
Yes, there's the cynic's gospel: it's all CHANCE.
Go ahead, quote Ecclesiastes 9 again to me as if it was a line from Proverbs. Rightly divided word? Hardly. Ecclesiastes is a book of philosophy, not theology, and is to be considered from that perspective. The Gospels, however, are books of theology, or figuratively, the new stone tablets.
Jesus tells us clearly "I am the Resurrection and the Life" in response to 'yes, I believe we will be raised in the last day.' Life is now, the Kingdom of God is within you, and we are more than dirt.
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,266
Thank you OC, I always enjoy your posts :D
Regarding Ecclesiastes, here is a brief outline for those interested. Notice where chapter 9 falls :wink: (Man, this is going to be a lot of typing..)
I. The theme: All is Vanity (1:1-3)
II. The theme proved (1:4-3:22)
A. By the transitioniness of all things (1:12-18)
B. Evil remains despite power, wisdom, and knowledge (1:12-18)
C. Pleasure ends in emptiness (2:1-3)
D. Riches and great works give no enduing satisfaction (2:4-11)
E. Wisdom is better than folly, but both have an end (2:12-36)
F. The weary round of life (3:1-22)
III The theme unfolded (4:1-10:20)
A. In view of the oppressions and iniqities of life (4:1-16)
B. In view of riches and poverty (5:1-20)
C. In view of man's inevtable end (6:1-12)
D. In view of the incurable evil of man (7:1-29)
E. In view of the mystery of the divine providences (8:1-17)
F. In view of the worlds wrong standard of values (9:1-18)
G. In view of the anarchy of the world (10:1-20)
IV The best thing possible to the natural man apart from God (11:1 - 12:12)
V The best thing possible to man under the law (12:13-14)
guibox,
I challenge you to find where the theme unfolded, equals the theme proved. There in will you find the answers that will clear up your misunderstanding.
Peace my brother,
Jeff
Regarding Ecclesiastes, here is a brief outline for those interested. Notice where chapter 9 falls :wink: (Man, this is going to be a lot of typing..)
I. The theme: All is Vanity (1:1-3)
II. The theme proved (1:4-3:22)
A. By the transitioniness of all things (1:12-18)
B. Evil remains despite power, wisdom, and knowledge (1:12-18)
C. Pleasure ends in emptiness (2:1-3)
D. Riches and great works give no enduing satisfaction (2:4-11)
E. Wisdom is better than folly, but both have an end (2:12-36)
F. The weary round of life (3:1-22)
III The theme unfolded (4:1-10:20)
A. In view of the oppressions and iniqities of life (4:1-16)
B. In view of riches and poverty (5:1-20)
C. In view of man's inevtable end (6:1-12)
D. In view of the incurable evil of man (7:1-29)
E. In view of the mystery of the divine providences (8:1-17)
F. In view of the worlds wrong standard of values (9:1-18)
G. In view of the anarchy of the world (10:1-20)
IV The best thing possible to the natural man apart from God (11:1 - 12:12)
V The best thing possible to man under the law (12:13-14)
guibox,
I challenge you to find where the theme unfolded, equals the theme proved. There in will you find the answers that will clear up your misunderstanding.
Peace my brother,
Jeff
But the soul sleep adherents do not [/quote:fec26]Orthodox Christian said:
Your problem is that the talking of 'life' and 'death' in terms of man's destiny transcend our physical life on earth. When Christ says that 'He who believes in me will never die' it doesn't mean that he will continue to go on living in some other form, but that he is guaranteed eternal life.
The life eternal will be a continuence of our bodies, just new and improved immortal bodies. Our eternal destiny is realized at the resurrection, not at death.
Orthodox Christian said:
Of course, to take it literally is not only to create absurdity but to ignore the metaphorical use of it in Revelation to speak of martyrdom, and to correlate with the OT belief that the 'life' or 'soul' was contained in the blood, shed by the sacrifice and bled under the altar.
If I was going to prove immortality of the soul, this would be the LAST verse I'd try and twist to make it fit.
Orthodox Christian said:
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not only figurative, but blatantly contradictory to the rest of scripture if taken literally. The usage of 'hell' as well as the 'bodily' imagery lends itself to non-literal interptation according to traditional thought. Also, linguistic and cultural context defies literal interpretation
Orthodox Christian said:
No, not figuratively, but we see that Christ did not go to heaven at death but rested in the grave where he was resurrected without seeing corruption (Acts 2:34) He himself said that He had not ascended to the Father. Now you might end up using the old 'the thief and Christ didn't go to heaven but to paradise in Hades' argument but that lacks complete support. Plus so many try to use this to also prove that Christ's soul went to heaven when He said, 'Father into thy hands I commit my spirit'.
So which is it? Soul or spirit? Heaven or paradise? In what form? So many contradictions nobody knows where they stand because they try to either make everything the same thing, or completely separate things out of it.
Orthodox Christian said:
'Cynical ranting' or not, the language used here also in conjuntion with Job and the rest of the scriptures, support the wholism of man. Were Ecclesiastes 9 the only chapter in the scripture to expound on such things, you might be able to find your way around it. However nothing Solomon says isn't reiterated elsewhere in the scriptures and confirmed by Paul and Christ in the NT.
Orthodox Christian said:
Apparently you forgot to see where Christ clarified what 'receiving eternal life meant'.
Let's see the whole picture:
John 11:23-25
Hmm...A women who sat at Jesus' feet to learn from Him. I wonder where she learned such a strange notion when man has an immortal soul?
Then Jesus says:
Well. There you go. Never die means that they will gain immortality as 'souls'. Not so. As already mentioned, our physical death is not the end of the equation. Having eternal life means that we 'will never die again'.
Let's take a look at what Christ meant when he said 'you will never die'.
Ah, but notice the clarification
I direct you to look at 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 and see this realization.
You see Jesus was clarifying to Martha where her eternal life comes from. Jesus was revealing who He was. To prove it and to give a taste of the resurrection Martha was talking about, Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus didn't have an immortal soul. Where is the talk about his days in heaven?
And here is another contradiction: Do we have immortal souls automatically? And yet Im hearing here passages of Christ saying 'believe on me and you will have eternal life'.
So which is it? Are we inherently immortal or do we receive it after Christ's resurrection? It can't be both. Make up your mind.
If it is the second, the Bible makes it plain that the wicked do not have eternal life. So how can man be inherently immortal?
The bible makes it plain that rewards and immortality are given at the resurrection. To get around this, many do the old 'body reunited with the soul' thing. This is a gratuitous assumption based on the preconceived notion that the 'soul is immortal' and not on clear biblical teaching.
Rather it is read into the texts.
It has to be or the immortal soul-ist has no leg to stand on with blatant texts that contradict them. For example:
1 Corinthians 15:51-55
1 Thessalonians 4:13-16
John 5:25,28,29
Daniel 12:1
Ezekiel 18:20
Job 14:12-14
Job 21:30,32
Psalms 146:3,4
Even then, they still can't get around texts such as
1 Corinthians 15:16-23
2 Timothy 4:6-8
Revelation 22:12
Which show that our reward, our eternal life is realized at the resurrection and not at death and that it is the 'whole' body that is restored anew to eternal life, not a body/soul reunification.
Instead we see that the NT jives with the Hebrew mindset of the wholism of man. the whole man dies - the whole man is made alive.
Instead, they'd rather institute Greek philosophies into the scriptures that is not there in the texts.[/quote]
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,415
- 5,889
This verse is not a warning call to the wicked; it is about not fearing. The context of the passage is Jesus sending out the disciples "as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matt. 10:16). And, you are still ignoring what is actually being said, namely, that men can kill the body but not the soul. This is proof enough that 'soul' means more than just 'life'.guibox said:
I have never stated that the wicked will have a disembodied existence and it is not an argument against dualism.guibox said:
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, you are now missing the nuances of 'life' and 'death' as they are used in Scripture. Look closely and carefully at how Jesus and Paul speak of 'eternal life' and 'abundant life' and you will see that it means much more than just merely existing. However, when it comes to those in hell, they merely exist, in torment at that, which is not really 'living' in the sense that the believer will live.guibox said:
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,415
- 5,889
What gave me away? ;)Drew said:
For the following two reasons (taken from my paper - I have yet to receive a mark so perhaps I shouldn't quote from it ;) ):Drew said:
(1) God interacts with us.
God, however “he†may be defined, and other immaterial, supernatural forces or beings, such as angels and demons, can act upon humans. Such phenomena as prophecy, visions, the inspiration of Scripture ("God-breathed"), temptation, demon possession, and especially the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, show that these immaterial beings can interact with human minds in the same way that one's mind interacts with one's brain. It seems to me to be contradictory to deny the possibility of interaction between my immaterial mind and material brain while at the same time believing that other immaterial, supernatural beings can exert influence on my mind.
(2) God has a mind without a body.
Christianity certainly affirms that God is a rational being, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but that he is also spirit; immaterial and without extension. Likewise, the angels that he created contain mind without body, although it is said that they can take on the form of a human. It is apparent from the Bible that not only can immaterial beings think and have memories, intention, and desire apart from a material body, but they can distinguish one from another, having some form of a self-identity. I do not have any reason to deny the possibility that each human has some immaterial, reasoning substance which can contain memories, intention, desire, and self-identity, especially since I believe that it is true of God and his immaterial messengers.
You seem to have a much better grasp on philosophy than I, so I await your reply before I get too far. I do have some reasons as to why I reject a materialst view of the mind-body problem, but I am not sure if they would cover property dualism. I see some similarity but I am less familiar with property dualism.
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
Hello Free:
Thanks for your reply. Are you a student at a secular college / university or a Christian one? I would humbly suggest that the arguments you are giving are not strictly philosophical in nature (at least based on what I understand philosophy to be). Instead you assume the factual reality of immaterial supernatural forces and the further factual reality of interaction between such beings and the physical world (at least the brain). I am not saying that I disagree with your conclusions, but you have not made what I would call a philosophical argument to defend them. I suppose the important question is: Will the person who reads / grades your paper accept these assertions based on their Biblical origins or will they demand an "argument" for them. Furthermore, have you not effectively assumed that the mind is an immaterial "thing" when you say "these immaterial beings can interact with human minds in the same way that one's mind interacts with one's brain."
My understanding is that the reason why substance dualism is out of favour is that it seemingly cannot tell a story of how something immaterial can "push physical buttons" as it were. Do you see how this is a problem? By this I mean, do you not see how some account must be provided as to how such interaction is at least conceivably possible?
You may have read my ideas in this and other threads about how things like the soul (and "mind" for that matter) are not immaterial "things" but are rather the necessary phenomenological accompaniment of the action of a physical thing like a brain. Is it not possible that such a view is indeed consistent with a Christian view of the world? What is wrong with a kind of Christian version of property dualism? On such a view, God "saves" knowledge of your brain when it dies and then re-constitutes you as a single unified being at the resurrection. Because your soul / mind "comes along for the ride" with your brain in virtue of its necessary phenomenological accompaniment, such a resurrection could bring it all back - "body and soul" as it were.
Thanks for your reply. Are you a student at a secular college / university or a Christian one? I would humbly suggest that the arguments you are giving are not strictly philosophical in nature (at least based on what I understand philosophy to be). Instead you assume the factual reality of immaterial supernatural forces and the further factual reality of interaction between such beings and the physical world (at least the brain). I am not saying that I disagree with your conclusions, but you have not made what I would call a philosophical argument to defend them. I suppose the important question is: Will the person who reads / grades your paper accept these assertions based on their Biblical origins or will they demand an "argument" for them. Furthermore, have you not effectively assumed that the mind is an immaterial "thing" when you say "these immaterial beings can interact with human minds in the same way that one's mind interacts with one's brain."
My understanding is that the reason why substance dualism is out of favour is that it seemingly cannot tell a story of how something immaterial can "push physical buttons" as it were. Do you see how this is a problem? By this I mean, do you not see how some account must be provided as to how such interaction is at least conceivably possible?
You may have read my ideas in this and other threads about how things like the soul (and "mind" for that matter) are not immaterial "things" but are rather the necessary phenomenological accompaniment of the action of a physical thing like a brain. Is it not possible that such a view is indeed consistent with a Christian view of the world? What is wrong with a kind of Christian version of property dualism? On such a view, God "saves" knowledge of your brain when it dies and then re-constitutes you as a single unified being at the resurrection. Because your soul / mind "comes along for the ride" with your brain in virtue of its necessary phenomenological accompaniment, such a resurrection could bring it all back - "body and soul" as it were.
Free said:
No it is not. Again, you ignore the importance of 'life' in the context of eternal life. We all physically die. When the Bible speaks about 'death' and 'life' it is referring to the two fates of mankind, not the physical death we all share. Man can destroy this body. He has no control of what happens in the afterlife so there is no need to fear him?
Why shouldn't we fear someone who can kill us? Because the Bible's emphasis is on life after death.
Hence, our eternal life is in God's hand and He can choose to destroy it or preserve it. The argument leans in this direction because you still haven't proven that the 'soul' is something that survives death, nor can it be read into the word 'soul' in this passage.
However, the 'life', the 'essence' the 'thinking, feeling man', all that man IS in the afterlife can be destroyed by God. You see this 'soul' (living being, life)is completely renewed to new life at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51-55). However the wicked are resurrected to damnation. They are truly 'destroyed' both body and soul (eternal life, existence)
Free said:
Unfortunately, it is you who will not find support for your view when you 'look closely' in the scriptures. The word 'destroy' is not used in the context you think when speaking about the ultimate fate of the wicked. This argument is weak because it doesn't support the view of eternal torment or immortality of the soul, so it is twisted to try and make a 'living death' or 'destroy' to mean 'ruin'. In the bible, death is death. It is the opposite of life.
The wages of sin is 'death' BUT the gift of God is 'eternal life' - Romans 6:23
I suggest you find the Hebrew and Greek usages of the word 'destroy' in the Bible by looking at my threads "The Word destroy in the Bible' and 'Destruction in the bible means...destruction' in the Bible Study/Apologetics forums. You will find that this argument is a weak attempt to try and support the preconceived notion that the wicked have eternal life.
BTW, the issue here is immortality of the soul. You have not addressed the previous texts that show our gift/reward (eternal life) is granted at the resurrection and not at death.
Drew said:
I can agree somewhat with this view.
The issue is not that man's essence (the soul, if you so choose to call it that) isn't preserved or reconstituted, but that it exists outside the body as man's thinking, cogitating essence (i.e. the whole man without the body) frolicking around in heaven eating fruit and dancing on the streets of gold, awaiting a body to come back to (A completely useless and redundant thing when eternal life is being experienced in heaven at the moment). This is not Hebrew or Christian but Greek.
The Bible just doesn't support it as much as people try to twist the texts and the language to try and make it fit, while ignoring the clear teaching of wholism and resurrection.
O
Orthodox Christian
Guest
- Thread starter
- #58
guibox said:
Your problem is that the talking of 'life' and 'death' in terms of man's destiny transcend our physical life on earth. When Christ says that 'He who believes in me will never die' it doesn't mean that he will continue to go on living in some other form, but that he is guaranteed eternal life.[/quote:8f4da]
I read the text at face value, looking at the voice and tense used. "I give" is NOT "I will give." You are impelled to force your predisposed, indoctrinated reading upon the passage.
guibox said:
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not only figurative, but blatantly contradictory to the rest of scripture if taken literally. The usage of 'hell' as well as the 'bodily' imagery lends itself to non-literal interptation according to traditional thought. Also, linguistic and cultural context defies literal interpretation
Orthodox Christian said:
No, not figuratively, but we see that Christ did not go to heaven at death but rested in the grave where he was resurrected without seeing corruption (Acts 2:34) He himself said that He had not ascended to the Father. Now you might end up using the old 'the thief and Christ didn't go to heaven but to paradise in Hades' argument but that lacks complete support. Plus so many try to use this to also prove that Christ's soul went to heaven when He said, 'Father into thy hands I commit my spirit'.
So which is it? Soul or spirit? Heaven or paradise? In what form? So many contradictions nobody knows where they stand because they try to either make everything the same thing, or completely separate things out of it.[/quote:8f4da]
Not very astute, are you? You just spent 25 minutes proving points given. For those able to read whole sentences without breaking them down like a set of legos, the following explanation will be superfluous- but please indulge me: All of the examples I used were indeed figurative, by design.
My point was that you choose to interpret them figuratively, yet you employ the figurative language of a philosophical treatise (Ecc 9:5 specifically) as a literal proof text. This caprice is unnecessary for those of us who read the text in tense and in toto.
: ROFL- Ecc 9:5 as proof text of wholism? Why not use verse 11 as proof of nihilism?guibox said:
Your argument is horribly conceived and contrived.
guibox said:
Well. There you go. Never die means that they will gain immortality as 'souls'. Not so. As already mentioned, our physical death is not the end of the equation. Having eternal life means that we 'will never die again'.
Let's take a look at what Christ meant when he said 'you will never die'.
Ah, but notice the clarification
[/quote:8f4da]
6:40 establishes that there is a resurrection in the last day, a point of no contention- that's an air ball on your part.
Martha's misunderstanding (v 23-24) of what and Who the resurrection is does not serve well as clarification and context of Jesus' ontological declaration (v 25). Jesus' statement is presented in the present tense regarding both He and us.
Well, just goes to show how one must blind oneself to the simple and plain truth of the Gospel to buy into the soul sleep heresy.
That last statement is the pot calling the kettle black.guibox said:
Your first proposition is a strawman. I do not state that we receive immortality at the general resurrection, YOU DO. Bad form.
Your second proposition, that the wicked do not have eternal life, is clearly refuted by scripture, but constitutes an entire thread to argue, that of the eternality of judgement and of hell. That you reject same is in keeping with your other bizarre heterodox beliefs, and is just as poorly defended.
Your third proposition constitutes yet another strawman. To "reunite" the soul with the body is a mistatement: though we will not all die before the coming of the Lord, but
Including those who have fallen asleep. The change is the putting on of the new body, in the new heaven and earth. Paul states elsewhere that we long to be cloathed- one is inclined to ask what the "we" is, as I indicated earlier- this point was scrupulously avoided.
Again, a list of scriptures speaking of the general resurrection. This is just as effective as your earlier foray into to proving to me points given. :-?guibox said:
I forgot about the Hebrew view of Sheol in late antiquity said:
Why don't you tell me whose idea "Logos" was, and what it is doing in the text of John's gospel?Never mind that Paul inserted Greek philosophy liberally said:
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,415
- 5,889
Christian.Drew said:
No, the arguments are not strictly philosophical and I have actually assumed nothing. This is why I was careful to state that the Christian should not have a problem with interactionism. My point is that it would be inconsistent for a Christian to believe that interactionism is a problem and at the same time believe the Bible.Drew said:
It appears that way from the post, but I do have my reasons which I will get into when I have time.Drew said:
Orthodox Christian said:
Then to take it at face value, without understanding the usage and semantics of the language is to be forced to prove a point that not only cannot be proven but contradicts scripture elsewhere.
Again, as reiterated over and over, eternal life in the new world is Christ's focus. Eternal life (which the Bible shows WHEN is granted - at the resurrection) is the focal point, the culmination of salvation history. To say that right now we are immortal is wrong. To say that right now we will live eternally is correct. You see, you take the present tense to mean 'immediacy' which is not correct. Jesus was stating a simple fact: we believe on him we have eternal life. The contingency is that that life is realized in the resurrection and the NT bears that out over and over again.
Christ's own words and Paul's writings show that having eternal life means fulfilling the resurrection promise because without it, there is no life. The mandate of eternal life is only contingent on Christ's resurrection and man's resurrection, not in life immediately after our physical death (1 Corinthians 15:12-18)
Orthodox Christian said:
No it is not. Rather it is the other way around. You assume that the wicked must be immortal based on Revelation 14 and 20 alone and then use that as the be all and end all. Instead you must work the other way around. Throughout the rest of scripture, we see that the wicked are indeed mortal and therefore cannot live forever. Hence Revelation 14 and 20 must be explained within that framework (and by the bible's own cross reference is explained)
Because you believe the soul is immortal, then logically the wicked are immortal too. However you start with a supposition that cannot be proven. First of all, if we have immortal souls, it is because of Christ's death and resurrection, not because we were created with it. Secondly, Christ's death and resurrection is a gift to those who 'believeth on Him'. Therefore, those who do not are not worthy of that gift.
If man is still sinful, he cannot receive the gift. Then those that die in their sins are still mortal for the 'wages of sin is death'.
Even if I believed that my soul went to heaven at death, you cannot apply that same attribute to the wicked for only the righteous are given eternal life.
Your problem is the insistency that 'eternal life' doesn't really mean immortality and that the wicked can have immortality and not 'eternal life', and that 'death' and 'destroy' doesn't mean death but 'ruin'. Here is where you allow Greek beliefs to interpret what the scripture does not do.
You ignore the Hebrew and Greek usage of the words in the Bible to impose a secular and pagan philosophy into the text to derive their meaning.