The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[Luke17:37]

Is this text support the existence of consciousness-bearing "soul" that survives the death of the body?

Where, specifically, is such a position expressed?

These souls in Death and Hades are raised to life in an immortal body, before being thrown into the lake of fire for eternal torture. Why would they be in Death and Hades if these weren't real places where they were conscious? If there's no consciousness prior to the resurrection, why should there be abodes for the dead?

This passage is about the day Lucifer goes to hell (see Revelation 20:1-3) and the people of the earth gloat.

Isaiah 14:9-17
9 “Hell from beneath is excited about you,
To meet you at your coming;
It stirs up the dead for you,
All the chief ones of the earth;
It has raised up from their thrones
All the kings of the nations.
10 They all shall speak and say to you:
‘Have you also become as weak as we?
Have you become like us?
11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
And the sound of your stringed instruments;
The maggot is spread under you,
And worms cover you.’
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

In Luke 16, Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man, He makes it clear what after death is like for those who don't know the Lord. Jesus presents the suffering (or relief) as happening immediately. Remember the man's brothers weren't dead yet, and he wished someone could go back to life to warn them so they don't come where he was.

Also, in Revelation 6:9-11 and Revelation 7:9-17 we see the souls of physically dead believers alive in heaven being comforted by the Lord while they wait for Jesus to avenge their blood.

Paul says, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

Matthew 22:31-33
31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

And when God said this (Exodus 3:6) to Moses, all three men were physically dead for many years, but Jesus is making it clear that they were alive a spiritual sense.

I don't believe we die and our next conscious moment is when we are raised to immortal bodies. The Bible doesn't give me that idea at all.

 

[expos4ever]

These souls in Death and Hades are raised to life in an immortal body, before being thrown into the lake of fire for eternal torture.

The word "soul" is never mentioned in the text. Please explain to us why this text forces us to conclude that these "persons" at this judgment scenario exist in the form of consciousness-bearing souls.

 

[Luke17:37]

The word "soul" is never mentioned in the text. Please explain to us why this text forces us to conclude that these "persons" at this judgment scenario exist in the form of consciousness-bearing souls.

Satan is chained for a thousand years before the resurrection of the wicked at the white throne judgment.

Go read all the passages I quoted for yourself. I have other things to do.

Okay, two verses to give you a head start:

Luke 16:23
23 And being in torment in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Revelation 20:13
13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

 

[expos4ever]

Satan is chained for a thousand years before the resurrection of the wicked at the white throne judgment.

Go read all the passages I quoted for yourself. I have other things to do.

Nothing posted thus far supports your claim about the nature of the human soul. And it's your job to make your case - instructing me to "read passage" is not proper discussion protocol.

Okay, two verses to give you a head start:

Luke 16:23
23 And being in torment in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Do you not realize this text undermines your position, at least as far as I understand it. You are claiming that human beings have a "soul" that survives the death of the body and which, presumably, has consciousness - it can "think and feel". Well, this very text has the rich man lifting eyes, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. And the account later refers to Lazarus as having a finger and the rich man having a tongue.

These are all, yes, body parts. So how can you use this text as evidence for the notion of a disembodied, consciousness-bearing soul when the participants in the account - the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham are all represented as having body parts?

 

[expos4ever]

13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Please explain to us precisely why you can take this text and infer that the "dead" must take the form of disembodied, consciousness-bearing "souls". That interpretation is consistent with what the text says, but other interpretations are also consistent with it.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul says, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

Paul's statement that he would rather be "absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" works perfectly with the position that the redeemed sleep until the future resurrection. From Paul's perspective as a subject of experience, he will indeed experience an instant transition from the body to the Lord's presence, even if he factually rests in the grave for several thousand years. I see no reason to discount this "phenomenological" reading.

 

[razzelflabben]

And what if we disagree on what is history and what is myth? History or allegory?

why should we? If we use common literary rules for determining, why should we disagree on the answer? Except in extremely rare cases, using the common literary rules we are all taught to use when reading any literary work, should result in the same conclusions and of those rare instances, it is most often lang. barriers that get in the way. Now, admittedly, lots of people think that for some odd reason they are justified to throw out those rules when it comes to reading the bible, but that is nothing more than a hand waving of what they know to be truth so that they do not have to face truth.

I view much of the Christology in the Bible as at best allegory and at worst myth. I think myths contain meanings and important truths and I think the Christ is powerful symbol of rescue, redemption and forgiveness. Jesus' physical resurrection as an allegory for our spiritual revival (or enlightenment) is also important. Whether it historically happened or not is not necessarily important for an allegorical reading.

But the text is not written as an allegory by common literary rules thus it is not an allegorical understanding that would prevail in a mind that is seeking only truth no matter where it leads. That is not to say that there is no truth behind what you say, in fact, other parts of scripture show a symbolic connection between the resurrection and our spiritual lives, however, in the account itself of the resurrection, it is written as though it is fact, history, if you will. IOW's the text tells us how the author intends for the account to be viewed, not our stubborn willful determinations and bias....whether you agree with the author or not is irrelevant to understanding how it should and should not be read.

Just for clarity before people get offended, I am not speaking to you directly but as you all, that is those that remove literary rules whenever they feel justified to do so...if that fits you then it fits if not then it doesn't, mine is not a judgment call, it is a discussion about the right and wrong ways to read ANY literary work

 

[expos4ever]

Isaiah 14:9-17
9 “Hell from beneath is excited about you,
To meet you at your coming;....

I believe the word "soul" does not even appear in this passage. Even if it did, you have to make an actual case that this word "soul" denotes a disembodied consciousness-bearing "thing". Yes, this concept of the soul is very widely accepted in the west, but we do not get this concept from the Bible; we get it from Greeks, like Plato. I am confident that I can find statements by qualified historians who will attest to the fact that the Hebrew people did not have this concept of a soul, and instead used the term to denote other things.

And what matters is what the term meant to those who wrote the texts, not how that term was used by other people.

It seems that you read phrases like "the dead are stirred" (from the Isaiah passage) and assume that the dead exist in the form of a conscious, disembodies soul. Well, you cannot simply assume this, you need to make a case.

 

[expos4ever]

On the matter of the nature of the "soul": Here is something from Wikipedia. Now, of course, I cannot afford the time to explore the credentials of the people behind these statements, but I believe it is likely correct:

The traditional concept of an immaterial and immortal soul distinct from the body was not found in Judaism before the Babylonian Exile,[1] but developed as a result of interaction with Persian and Hellenistic philosophies.[2] Accordingly, the Hebrew word nephesh, although translated as "soul" in some older English Bibles, actually has a meaning closer to "living being". Nephesh was rendered in the Septuagint as ψυχή (psūchê), the Greek word for soul. The New Testament also uses the word ψυχή, but with the Hebrew meaning and not the Greek.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think you are losing sight of my actual concern. My actual concern is not the meaning behind Jesus' miracles or the gurus miracles but whether such miracles even happened.

I think it is far more likely that these miracles were likely exaggerations upon re-telling and may have not actually happened. For example, India is a hotbed for such "miracle workers", but many of them are often exposed to be either fakes or there is no evidence to substantiate the claims in the first place. In other words, people are just making up the stories based on hearsay. These processes of exaggeration, mythologization, gossip and hearsay are so common to our everyday experience.

Why would Jesus, Jesus' disciples and the stories associated with him be immune to this?

can I jump in? This is actually a legitimate point in fact, it is so legitimate that scripture talks about it too. Scripture even talks about the "miracles" that false teachers will do and in the case of Egypt, the miracles that Moses preformed before Pharaoh were mirrored by Pharaoh's own magicians. But that is also why scripture tells us that the miracles that are unable to be copied are the miracles done within man, not outside of man. It is the changed heart, the new creation that is true miraculous evidence of the living God, not the miracles we tend to look for and rely on as our sole evidence for truth in such matters.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is a lot of discussion currently about soul....I did a scriptural study on this a while back, basically, if I understand both sides being presented, both are right and wrong. When we look at scripture and ask, what is the soul? What we find is that the soul and spirit are so closely connected that man himself is not able to separate them, but God alone can. IOW's the biblical understanding seems to take the Hebrew and Greek ideas of the inner being and meld them together into an understanding that only God can separate. thus, the soul/spirit is the eternal part of man and the part of man that becomes new. The soul/spirit of man is that inward part of man that makes a man who he is. It's a concept that is much harder to explain than it is to understand which might be why God in His wisdom decided to mesh the two words and ideas together for man to understand that which is very difficult to explain. Just a thought for what it's worth.

 

[expos4ever]

These souls in Death and Hades are raised to life in an immortal body, before being thrown into the lake of fire for eternal torture. Why would they be in Death and Hades if these weren't real places where they were conscious? If there's no consciousness prior to the resurrection, why should there be abodes for the dead?

I certainly agree that, in at least some sense, people "exist" between the time they die and the time of the resurrection. However, it is certainly possible that they are not conscious. Think of this analogy: the light bulb is the body, the "electricity in the power outlet" is the soul. Unless the electricity actually gets to the light bulb, there is no light (consciousness). The point is that it is at least conceivable that we can "exist" without either a body or "consciousness".

In any event, let's look at the text you are citing again:

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

I am about to argue that this whole chapter is clearly not intended to be taken literally and that we need to take that into account if we try to base a doctrine of the "soul" on it. So let me ask you this: if this chapter is to be taken literally, who are the "dead in the sea"? Is that another "place" where consciousness-bearing souls wait for judgment? I think you can see why this material is difficult to take literally.

Anyway, here is stuff from earlier in the chapter:

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I take it as relatively self-evident this text is full of poetic imagery, not to be taken literally. For example, if a "soul" is really a non-physical thing, how can it be seen?

 

[Andrew Hsu]

I think you have soaked up too many other people's opinions, especially from atheists or agnostics. Bible justifies itself. And afterall, it's up to you whether to believe it or not.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Paul's reinterpretation was formulated 2000 years ago, so I am not sure what you are saying.

I'm saying its difficult to see how outlandish Paul's interpretation was now that is has been filled out and developed over 2000 years by theologians and philosophers like Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

I suggest you are buying into precisely the same "interpretation" of the Old Testament that most Jews accepted 2000 years ago. I have tried to be clear that Paul rejects that interpretation and, I would claim, comes up with a "better" one (in a sense that I am not prepared to defend in this post).

I'm not buying into any interpretation. I'm just stating that the Jewish interpretation is much more straightforward than Paul's and easier to follow. For example, the Bible verses I quote clearly seem to indicate a Messiah who will change the world and usher in an era of utopia. Jesus did not do that. Paul re-interpreted this to mean a "personal change" and a "spiritual utopia". But you've really got to shove a square peg in a round hole to make that interpretation work with the prophecies in Isaiah.

And that is perfectly legitimate as long as the "re-interpreted" position is Biblically defensible (consonant with the Old Testament). Are you sure you are not assuming that there can be only one "valid" way to interpret a narrative?

I think a narrative can be interpreted in more ways than one. But its all a matter of perspective whether one is "more valid" than the other.

As I mentioned in my post, Mormonism has been argued to be true by millions of Mormons. They, like Paul, reinterpreted the religion of the day and wrote a new holy book which the religion of the day rejected.

You conveniently ignored all the direct Bible quotes I took which are prophecies of the Messiah unfulfilled by Jesus.

 

[paul becke]

God is a very ill-defined concept. I don't really know what God is. Nor do I really know "where" he exists. I've had experiences which I would call "experiences of the divine"; those awe-inspiring moments of clarity, mystery or profundity.

I guess the best way to describe God would be a disembodied, non-local consciousness. So far, all evidence points to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the neural networks in the physical brain, so I'm not sure how a consciousness could be disembodied and/or non-local.

'So far, all evidence points to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the neural networks in the physical brain,'

Wrong again, though it's good to see you are at least a tentative deist, and not a fully paid-up, zany materialist, though your vigorous nod in that direction bodes ill. I must say, though, that, in my ignorance of the Christian intellectual tradition (which Galileo, incidentally, never ceased to adorn, as a zealous Catholic Christian believer), and quantum mechanics even in the early sixties, the eastern religions seemed much more sophisticated to me on my journey back to Catholic Christianity.
Here is an article that would have brought you up to date quite a while ago - your assertion that 'all evidence suggests..' is simply wrong.

You should find much, if not all of the Google page of links, below, very germane and fascinating, but firstly read the top article by Pim van Lommel :

http://science-spirituality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/medical-evidence-for-ndes-reply-to.html

I'm going to look at the other links, myself asap. At least one of the sites concerns Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon and former lecturer at Harvard Medical School, and an extraordinary Near Death Experience he underwent. But another site to always keep tabs on is uncommondescent.com.

The book that really opened my eyes concerning Christianity, even after returning to the Catholic church, is called Christ in his Mysteries, by Blessed Columba Marmion, or Abbot Marmion, as he was called in the sixties. Before reading that, I had never really 'taken on board' Christ's humanity, subliminally thinking, I suppose, that he was really cheating a bit, being that he was God and all... Marmion explained the true humanity of Jesus with reference to his actually being physically tired, when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. However, recent, scientific studies of the Holy Shroud of Turin, now established as, indeed, 2000 years old, indicate that the soldiers (probably Thracian and known for their cruelty) botched Jesus' actual crucifixion and virtually nailed him to the cross twice. So, did more than go the extra mile, even disregarding his brutal Passion leading up to it. You can find plenty of this information and more on YouTube videos. Also, on the Sudarium of Oviedo, his burial face-cloth, the blood marks of which correspond very substantially to the wound-marks on the Shroud.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You missed the point. What did the words and deeds/ actions of Christ proclaim?

Sunday school answer:

"Jesus came proclaiming the Good News of the Gospel, that we are saved from our sins by his death and resurrection and can have eternal life in heaven if we accept him as our Lord and Saviour."

However, you missed my point. I am primarily concerned with the historical accuracy of the Bible. As such, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, and if the Bible is a misrepresentation of him, then his words and deeds may have been more like this:

"Jesus was an itinerant, apocalyptic rabbi who astounded people with his radical teachings and wisdom. He taught in parables about forgiveness, repentance, money, and reconciliation. He may have believed he had a very close connection with the divine. He was crucified after the religious leaders of the day saw his claims to the divine as heretical. He developed a large following who venerated him following his death."

 

[paul becke]

You conveniently ignored all the direct Bible quotes I took which are prophecies of the Messiah unfulfilled by Jesus.

Perhaps you will find what you are looking for here ? Among these 353 fulfilled prophecies :

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

 

[expos4ever]

I'm saying its difficult to see how outlandish Paul's interpretation was now that is has been filled out and developed over 2000 years by theologians and philosophers like Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

I disagree - I think with proper study of the history and culture of Paul's world, we can "get in his head" and understand his intended meaning.

I'm not buying into any interpretation. I'm just stating that the Jewish interpretation is much more straightforward than Paul's and easier to follow.

Not sure what you mean by "straightforward". A straightforward reading of "Animal Farm" presents us with a children's tale of barnyard animals. A more nuanced, sophisticated reading reveals political satire. And the fact that an interpretation is "easy to follow" is hardly a reliable metric of its validity.

For example, the Bible verses I quote clearly seem to indicate a Messiah who will change the world and usher in an era of utopia. Jesus did not do that.

Obviously Jesus changed the world. Dramatically. It happened to not be the change that His contemporaries were expecting. But, I suggest, the way He changed the world fits beautifully with the Old Testament narrative re-interpreted in an arguably better and more nuanced way.

Paul re-interpreted this to mean a "personal change" and a "spiritual utopia".

Disagree. I think that what you think Paul is saying differs significantly from what I think he is saying. And at this point, I should tell you that most western evangelicals will disagree vigourously with my take on what Paul is saying. I claim Paul has no interest whatsoever in a "spiritual utopia" and that his focus was on community, not "personal change".

But you've really got to shove a square peg in a round hole to make that interpretation work with the prophecies in Isaiah.

Well, that remains to be seen (no time to deal with this right now).

You conveniently ignored all the direct Bible quotes I took which are prophecies of the Messiah unfulfilled by Jesus.

How do you know I ignored anything? I may have overlooked something in all the business, but I do not ignore challenges - not my style. I will go back and have a look. You could make it easier for me by giving a post number(s).

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You have that wrong... It is for that very reason that the Christian DOES have the greater claim to truth. But it simply means nothing to the non-believer, which is no gauge of anything.

Who has a greater claim to truth, the Christian who experiences Christ or the Buddhist who experiences enlightenment? Or the Hindu who has visions of Krishna?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Well I haven't done a fraction of the reading that you have, so I don't know that I can relate.

But as others have said, Christianity is about a relationship with God, not an academic or legalistic religion. For me, the most important question is "what do you think of Jesus?" Or as Jesus himself asked his disciples, "who do you say that I am?"
Aside from all these, no doubt, erudite books, have your read the Gospels? Try the Gospel of Mark - it's the shortest. Jesus performed many miracles, gave people back their health, self esteem and taught many things about God. He also made a number of claims about himself - that he the only way to God and the only one who can give life, for example.
What do you make of all this? Never mind what other people write, teach, say or believe; if Jesus was to stand before you now and ask you that question, (who do you say I am?) what would you say?

Yes, there are divisions in the church and in some places we are far from the practices and example of the early church. Sadly some Christians, and churches, may not be the best examples of the Christian faith and God's love in action. We're not perfect.
But please don't reject, or judge, Jesus by some of his followers.

I've read the entire New Testament once. I've read the Gospels maybe 4 or 5 times.

When I read the Gospels, I read an exaggerated story of a wandering preacher who was venerated by his followers after his death. Gospels were written decades after his death after the stories had developed and undergone mythologization. This is a very standard and regular occurrence is pre-modern societies. Leaders are venerated by their followers and hearsay spreads rapidly to produce miraculous stories.

"Did you hear about that Jesus guy? I heard he was rebuking the Pharisees!"
"Oh yea! Well, I heard he healed a leper!"
"Yea, I also heard a rumour that he brought a girl back from the dead!"

Two days later:

"Jesus rebuked the Pharisees! Jesus healed lepers! Jesus brought girl back from the dead!"


We see this happening even today with news stories seeking the most exciting headlines. They will sensationalize the headline to get people's attention even if the headline is quite far from the truth. But all people remember is the headline, so the headline becomes the truth.


A question I have asked multiple times in this thread:

Why were Jesus, his disciples and the Gospel writers immune to this process???