My questions may sound dismissive of your beliefs, but I am just trying to understand how you have formulated your ideas:
You say your loved ones are in spirit form in Heaven. Conventionally speaking, Heaven is “up there”.
But when Saul sought the advice and reassurance of Samuel, Samuel was in sheol underground.
So did the book get it wrong? Or shouldn’t your loved ones be resting below?
Conversely, if your loved ones are comfortable as spirits in some location near Yahweh, and they are spirits until the End of Days, what is so special about the muddy remains of where their bodies may have been deposited (assuming, just for the purpose of this discussion they were not placed in a concrete lined grave with a copper coated casket)?
Would they (or others less fortunate) really have to schlep back to the graves where their body would be long gone? Couldn’t they be issued glorious and svelte spiritual bodies right there at the Wings-R-Us superstore?
Again, I am asking these questions in earnest, even though I put a little humor into the sentences.
Saul was in Sheol, but remember that some Churches believe that Jesus’ spirit entered Sheol and took therefrom the spirits who believed in Yahweh and took them with the thief on the cross that accepted the Christ and took them all to heaven. There are also those who believe that the spirits of the redeemed went to heaven even before the coming of Jesus because they believed that the Messiah would one day come. Sheol to these theologians believe that Sheol was the grave for the soul, i.e., body. It depends on a person’s interpretation. Please read Psalm 16. That is why the Methodist Church removed from the Apostles’ Creed the phrase: He descended into hell. Remember that Jesus said to the redeemed Malefactor: Today you shall be with me in paradise, i.e., heaven. Remember that Paul called paradise the third heaven. If I were you, I would read Psalm 16 in the New International Version. I do know what you mean by I Samuel 28. It does sound like Saul’s spirit came from a place under the flat earth. I still would read Psalm 16 in the NIV. Perhaps the spirit of Saul wasn’t really sure where his immaterial part came from. Jesus did say: Today you shall be with me in paradise. George, I have no hard feelings toward you. Ecclesiastes 12:7 says: Then shall the dust, i.e., nephesh or body, return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.@beaglelady
Yes, both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, speaking of Jesus, say, “He descended into hell.” What that means is open to interpretation. Perhaps it’s related to 1 Peter 3 18-20
18 For Christ also suffered[a] for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you[b] to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
You probably don’t realize this, but you are mixing together Pharisaic metaphysics with Zealot/Essene metaphysics.
Josephus tells us just enough for us to realize the distinctions… but probably hadn’t planned on that.
The Pharisees believed death was a sleep. And this would be consistent with Samuel “sleeping” in sheol.
Josephus describes a totally different view of the afterlife when he describes the Zealot speech (probably not actually given) at Masada to inspire mass suicide. The soul is described as having the power of movement, as a spiritual entity, and does not spend it’s days sleeping until the End of Days. The notion of the deceased serving as a “Guardian Angel” comes from this more active metaphysics of the Essenes - - and ironically, despite the extinction of the Essenes, is the more common view of the Western masses regarding the afterlife.
Edward, as you have demonstrated, the Bible has clues for both of these schools of thought. But I don’t think they were originally intended for “mixing and matching” to suit one’s preferences.
I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Sleep was used in relation to the body (nephesh) only. The spirit or ruach returned to God and lived without a body. It shall do that until I Thessalonians 3: 14. Read your Bible. God bless you and have a nice day. Sleep is only for the nephesh and not the ruach. Jewish Rabbis, many of whom I know, will tell you the same thing. This here has nothing to do with Platonic Philosophy. You will only find a trace in the Bible of Greek Philosophy. That is in Matthew 10:28 and Revelation 6:9.
Nephesh and ruach are Hebrew words if you weren’t sure of that. In the OT Apocrypha, you will find Greek Philosophy in relation to the immortality of the soul. That is Wisdom 3:1-9. Otherwise the eschatology is Jewish. This book lacks the resurrection. It was written by a Greek Jew in Alexandra, Egypt before the birth of Christ. Oh, it was the Sadducees that believed in the sleeping. They also did not believe in resurrection either. Shall we not move to a another topic? I will not be returning to this particular subject. It has been beaten to death already.
George, are you going to stay up all night? Was our discussion truly that important? I hope you go to bed and get some rest. You must be awfully tired by now. Perhaps you are writing some one else.
As robust as your command of Hebrew semantics and grammar may be, it must be recognized
that even the Finest Lexicon Does Not a Consistent Metaphysics Make !
As I mentioned before, the New Testament is a compendium of writings from various factions or
interest groups within the primitive Church. I’m not quite sure why you are fixating on the Hebrew
meanings, when the New Testament is mostly in Greek.
How can the Sadducees hold to Death = Sleep equation if they see no afterlife immediately, or
even at the End of Days. No Afterlife = Dead (not sleeping).
The Pharisees, however, believing they would be awakened for the End of Days (and the big Silver
Horn Finale that Moses would perform, with Aaron on backup!):
We are told (Nu 10:2 ) that Moses was commanded to make two silver trumpets which should serve to summon the people to the door of the tabernacle; give the signal for breaking up the camp; or call to arms. These instruments were the hatsotseroth, which differed from the shophar in that they were straight, not curved, were always made of metal, and were only blown by the priests.
The Pharisaic view is corroborated at this website:
“MESSIANIC APOLOGETICS”: A MASSIVE ONLINE DEPOSITORY OF INFORMATION AND TEACHING, ADDRESSING THE THEOLOGICAL AND SPIRITUAL ISSUES OF THE BROAD MESSIANIC MOVEMENT
Death, as an unconscious sleep
QUESTION: Death is described as a sleep in the Bible. Would this not imply complete unconsciousness until the resurrection?
ANSWER:
Those who advocate a conscious, disembodied, post-mortem state for the deceased between death and the resurrection, usually have to deal with proponents of psychopannychy, more commonly known as “soul sleep.”
Psychopannychists believe that between death and the resurrection, the human person exists in a completely unconscious state. They often claim strong support for this from a variety of Biblical passages that describe the deceased as existing in a condition of “sleep.” These include, but are not limited to:
“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).
“Consider and answer me, O LORD my God; enlighten my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death” (Psalm 13:3).
“This He said, and after that He said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep’” (John 11:11).
“Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51).
[END OF EXCERPT]
As you can see, Edward, the Sadducees cannot be the ones who believed in “soul sleep”, because that would make Jesus (quoted in John 11:11) a Sadducee.
The author of the Messianic site holds to a “unified” Jewish viewpoint (excluding the Sadducees of course) on the issue of after-death consciousness - - or at least a unified view amongst the Christians.
He writes this on which view is the more correct one: “soul sleep” or “awareness in the afterlife”:
“Those who believe in a temporary disembodied afterlife have always been aware of the various passages in Scripture that describe death as a “sleep.” The clear challenge is that the psychopannychist or “soul sleep” advocate prefers to set one set of Biblical passages against another.”
“Those verses that imply some degree of post-mortem, disembodied conscious activity for the deceased in another dimension (i.e., Isaiah 14:9-10; Luke 16:23-31; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Revelation 6:9) have to either be allegorized or ignored. In many cases, psychopannychists can be shown in pitting one selection of Biblical passages against another, a fairly typical liberal hermeneutic (one which often takes place in the debate like that over homosexuality).”
“Responsible, conservative interpreters are called to hold the integrity of all Biblical passages together. J.A. Motyer is right to assert, “the ‘sleep’ metaphor must be balanced by those other descriptions which imply a conscious, living state” [Footnote 2: J.A. Motyer, After Death: What Happens When You Die? (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 1996), p. 107.], after the time of a person’s death and before resurrection.”
Josephus, however, is under no such illusion that the various Jewish religious schools shared a single opinion. Not only does he distinguish between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, he also points out a third view about the afterlife:
He specifically attributes the view to the Essenes, in “Jewish Wars” 2.154-158, said that the righteous would reside after death on a idyllic island “beyond the ocean”: “a place which is not oppressed by rain or snow orheat, but is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from the ocean.” While some critics say Josephus was just imitating the Greek ideas of his masters, K.C. Bautch points out that "
“Josephus’s account points to the belief in a numinous realm beyond the inhabited earth and the river which encircles it, as we find in 1 Enoch 17-23.” [Footnote: Bautch, Kelley Coblentz. A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: No One Has Seen What I Have Seen, p. 266. 1 Enoch 17 is in the Book of the Watchers.]
This description is amplified in detail in the little known and little appreciated manuscript: “History of the Rechabites”. Critics believe the body of the book is Jewish, with a Christianized beginning and ending attached.
POST SCRIPT: Edward, I terminate this post a little early… so that you can read it now if you like.
I still do not agree with you. As for me, I am now going to sleep. I am not an ADV member, George. Therefore, I do not believe in soul-sleep, which should be called spirit-sleep since he body is the nephesh and without the ruach is sleeping. Good night.
These people are writing in English. Why do you think their English should conform to your translation of Hebrew? And even if you were perfectly right about the word choice, what does that have to do with the the price of apples in New York City? These words do not change the effect of what is being described.
As for the fact there were at least three different views about the afterlife in Jewish society, this is indisputable. And we can now add your version of the afterlife for a nice Fourth Way.
I should add that this whole idea of a conscious mind functioning without a body comes from the same place that inspired the Greeks with their version: the Zoroastrians.
The Zoroastrians, as you will recall, put bodies into special-built holding areas (sometimes referred to as “Towers of Silence”) where birds of prey and beasts could dismember the bodies and consume the flesh that would taint the water and earth of God’s sacred creation.
While this was happening, and usually after a 3 day period, a person’s soul would finish his or her travel by crossing the bridge of judgment. If he or she was unrighteous, the bridge narrowed until he/she fell into a river of flaming, molten metal.
If he or she was righteous, the bridge widened, allowing the righteous soul to safely cross and enter Paradise.
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect. Sleep tight, George. Remember, no-spirit sleep. Hebrews 12:22-23. Read created in God’s Image by Anthony Hoekema of Calvin Theological Seminary. It might help. Have you ever heard of the intermediate state?
Bart Ehrman tells a story about when he encountered a claimed Gnostic. As can be imagined, his response was “Really! What do you know?” Unfortunately her response was “I can’t tell you.”
Thank you for your kind regards… but I have no idea how your Mount Zion applies to the topic at hand. And why would you oppose spirit sleep? And why do you think the Sadducees endorsed it?
In any case, I think it is fascinating that so many different twists and turns on the topic survived together, as a compendium of sorts, within the New Testament!
to the spirits of righteous men made perfect? These spirits are already in heaven, George. God bless and go to bed. We may discuss this tomorrow when the sun is shining.
I generally agree with you. Theoretically have been a Christian for 60 years (if I have asked Jesus into my heart enough times, quit doing that about 30 years ago. Don’t know how “personal” God is but I talk at him every day and have no complaints against God and/or Jesus and seem to have a great Guardian Angel who keeps me out of trouble.
25 years ago I discovered The Christian Reformed Church. The pastor and I became close friends and spent many hours talking about theology and philosophy. He retired and moved 2,000 miles. I moved 30 miles and quit going to church.
I have no problem believing that the two primary ecumenical creeds represent all the truth I need to know but no longer claim to understand anything that has been preached at me. To me, “God” is “totally other” and I don’t trust anyone who claims to intellectually understand any of the dogma.
If there was a “Church Of The Apostle’s Creed” and accepting it as turth was the only doctrinal requirement, I would give it a try.
Yes. The term for this is “seeker.” Or you could call yourself a “God fearer,” which in the first century was a Gentile sympathizer who attended synagogue and followed some Jewish customs but did not become a full convert.
And such evidence will not be forthcoming, but you already know that. If everyone, even those who profess faith in God, has to accept the possibility that our belief could be in error, what is the threshold between believer and agnostic? Is it 99% certainty? 90? 85? Is 51% enough? Of course, this is just an illustration of “the fallacy of the beard,” but it is an honest question to ask yourself. If you already know that you cannot achieve 100% certainty of God’s existence, what level of certainty do you require before you can acknowledge him as Lord? (I don’t expect you to answer that, but you should ponder it.)
According to wikipedia, the fallacy of the beard is a class of “continuum fallacies” that also goes by (among other names) “fallacy of the bald.”
So how is it that I, as a bearded and bald guy had never heard of this and had to look it up just now! Thanks for the new name for it. [I had heard of the fallacy of ‘the heap’ which seems to be another of its names.]
Many times I have asked myself if my belief in God was much like Pascal’s Wise Wager. As such it might be considered Theistic Agnosticism. Apparently, Einstein concluded that, even as a wager, it was not worth the commitment. Currently, astrophysics makes it even more difficult–i.e., takes more chutzpah–to entertain the idea that the Creator of this vast universe could actually care for something so insignificant as a human being. Einstein reveled in the public adulation afforded him, and yet he may have been too humble to believe in a personal God who cared for each individual human.
In some ways I feel luckier than Einstein. Not having been gifted with a mind as good at problem solving as his, when face with very important decisions that had me stumped, I often opened my mind for ‘outside’ inspiration. And, more often than not, the results worked out better than I had reason to expect. How do I know that? Of course I can’t know it to the same degree as I know when I make a needed scientific measurement. But it happened too often to be accidental. It’s likely that Einstein never saw the need for ‘opening his mind’ to outside inspiration–certainly not in making decisions relating to his personal life. Perhaps if he had been willing, he could have accepted the almost unbelievable concept of a personal, loving God.
Al Leo
Well, Reggie…you do indeed sound undecided. A phrase like “theistic agnosticism” sounds more like a tilt toward the believing side of things. But “not to decide is to decide.” For that reason, I think agnosticsim is problematic in the long term.
As for “firm conclusive evidence” — that is a matter of definition. What we mean by “firm” is one thing when selecting a mattress for the bed…another thing when talking to a wayward teenager…and still another thing when deciding on a political candidate. And “conclusive evidence” is great when deciding on the need for knee replacement surgery …
I suppose the point is: what do YOU consider firm conclusive evidence of God or anything else? We could as easily be skeptical of the existence of our kidneys — after all, has your doctor ever pulled them out of your back and showed them — firm conclusive proof – to you. Nope, but he has a chart on the wall and you believe the chart because — why??
Same thing with believing in God. You look at what you can see — the beauty of nature, the complexity of the human body (where WOULD we be without kidneys? Just ask anyone on dialysis!!), the amazing display of the night sky and the fact that — evidently — 13.8 B yrs is not long enough for all of it to have occurred unintentionally.
And then there is the Big Bang…So!! Exactly how firm does that mattress need to be before you decide to go with it???