Maybe this explanation for Nancey Murphy's view of anthropology is a simple way of wording things. You tell me. The one particularly controversial aspect of Murphy's thought is what she writes about non-reductive physicalism or top-down causation. She argues that we need to consider the potential effects that one's environment possibly has on lower-level brain processes. For example, consider the role that the environment seems to have on the formation of "neural nets" or cell assemblies. One could evidently say that it is not only the random growth of dendrites or synaptic connections that lead to the formation of neural nets, but a "co-presentation of stimuli" to neurons might also explain these nets/assemblies.
What top-down causation suggests is that self-direction or freedom may result from an initially deterministic system. Another example that Murphy gives to illustrate this point is the gradual emergence of self-direction in prokaryotes like bacteria. Her account of what makes us human ultimately can be stated in natural terms. However, she does not exclude the work of God or the holy spirit nor does she deny the resurrection of the body. We are who we are, not only by virtue of synaptic connections or neural activity, but our relationship with God and others likewise shapes us qua our humanity.
I believe that Christian materialism is consonant with Bible verses such as Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Peter 3:20.
I believe that Christian materialism is consonant with Bible verses such as Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Peter 3:20.
45 comments:
I have not read Nancey Murphy (I have read some Peter Van Inwagen though, who is also Christian materialist).
But as it is presented here (and as I've seen materialism presented everywhere I've seen it), there are metaphysical problems here that seem to make the theory untenable (at least for me).
1. In order to have top down causation you need first to posit compound wholes that both ground and transcend the parts. I.e. the matter that make up my body only make up my body insofar as they participate in the organic system of my body, my body is not simply the sum of the material parts making up my body, since the material parts of my body come and go yet I remain. So the "whole" of my organic body is metaphysically prior to any of the parts and ground them as parts.
I was conceived a single cell, and now I'm a whole lot more cells, yet "I" am the same, therefore "I" is not X amalgamation of cells, but I am that which transcends any physical amalgamation as my body.
This means that what is essential to me is not any physical substance or combination of physical substances, but some "form" or some "process" or some relation network or something like that.
Top down causation can only make sense with some kind of "realist" view when it comes to forms, or essences, or determinate relations, and any such view is necessarily not materialist.
2. For a materialist the enviroment/person distinction can only be a virtual one, since there is no metaphysical distinction between the matter making up the world and the matter making up my finger, brain, heart, or whatever.
3. The concept of emergence is incoherent given materialism, it's literal magic, a bacteria cannot gain "self-direction" before it is a "self," yet to be a self just is to be a coherent whole that engages the world as a subject and as an agent. This move is just to avoid the problem, it's like assuming panpsychism but just saying not everything has the ability to self-direct, the problem isn't self-direction, it's how one can assume that our material/physical descriptions are in principle able to exhaustively (at least a full material/physical description) describe reality and still get a ontological "self" from that, it's impossible.
4. Given materialism resurrection is indistinguishable from creating a copy, it also fails (by necessity) to make sense of subjectivity.
Of course one can redefine "matter" or "physical" to the point to where it doesn't mean what it usually means, but then I wonder why we don't just say we're dialectical idealists, where we say that reality is not one of "substances," or "objects" or what the physical scientists quantify for their equations, but closer to process/relation/"spirit," which we engage with as world objects and substances due to the type of finite rational animals we are.
There's more I could say.
I would say that none of those verses imply materialism, at all, perhaps they rule out the immortality of the soul and the idea that the words translated "soul" refers to anything other than the whole human person (including body), but that's not materialism. I think materialism would have been incomprehensible to basically everyone in the bible, I also think Acts 17:28, Ecclesiastes 12:7 implies that something like the Hegelian "spirit" or Henry's "Life" or something like that is part of the biblical metaphysics.
https://youtu.be/Y2mCYlURKOY?si=xl-YUjw8TAbjXz_B
https://youtu.be/mfJXwd4_yIM?si=mxZ_xPlCJRzzxjyA
"I believe that Christian materialism is consonant with Bible verses such as Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Peter 3:20."
None of them teach materialism, they just don't explain what the Bible does in other places.
Ezekiel 18:4 is also strange because the JWs often quote this verse, there is absolutely no mention of describing the substantial components of man, nor about afterlife awareness. Here, "nefesh" simply means man himself, it does not negate anything, of having a soul or not.
Adherents of Christian anthropological dualism do not understand by "soul" what they mean by "nefesh" in those places of the Holy Scriptures, when it means the whole man himself. The verses about the latter's death do not refute or deny the former, so they cannot be used for that anyway.
These expressions are simply Hebraisms, as the word 'nefesh' often can substitute for the reflexive and personal pronoun in Hebrew. Thus, expressions such as "my soul shall die" = "I shall die" should be understood in this way. The same word in the Bible can have multiple meanings, or sometimes different words can express the same thing. For example, the Hebrew 'nefesh' is often not translated as "soul" but as "living being" (therefore, when speaking of the death of 'nefesh', it does not deny the immortality of the soul, as Jehovah's Witnesses might think).
When the Bible speaks of the "soul" dying (e.g., Numbers 23:10; 1 Kings 19:14), it always refers to the whole person (in a broader sense) and never to the soul as an element of human creation (in a narrower sense). This is especially true for passages like Ezekiel 18:4, which the Watchtower Society often quotes. When the prophet says there that "the soul that sins shall die", it is obviously meant in the sense of the human being's spiritual-physical unity, since an isolated soul could neither sin nor die.
Mortality is a characteristic that, in the New Testament, applies only to the earthly body (Romans 6:12; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:53ff; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 5:4). The earthly body belongs to the visible and transient sphere (2 Corinthians 4:18). However, the new body, which the person will receive in their continuous existence at the last day's resurrection, is immortal (1 Corinthians 15:35-54; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 3:21).
Scripture describes the origin of humans and animals alike not philosophically but vividly, attributing 'nefesh' (the warm breath manifesting the principle of life) to both. When Scripture describes the creation of the first human, it mentions only the body formed from the clay of the ground and the breath of life, nothing else. This view is maintained in later texts [Ecclesiastes 12:7; Ezekiel 33:3; especially 37:7–10]. Nonetheless, it leaves no doubt about the higher origin of the human soul and its nature, which is essentially different from the body: God breathes the breath of life directly into humans, whom He created in His own image, unlike the animals, among which there is none like him; only humans have 'neshamah' (a rational soul). The soul is not subject to the fate of the body; thus, it has a different kind of existence: "The dust (the human body) returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" [Ecclesiastes 12:7; Ezekiel 37:7,10]. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." [Matthew 10:28; cf. 16:26] It draws a parallel with the spirituality of God: "For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." [1 Corinthians 2:11] The soul has the capacity for truth recognition [Job 20:3, 32:8; Exodus 28:3; Psalms 138:14], thus it is different from the soul of an animal.
Even in the 19th century, many rationalist historians of religion believed that the older books of the Old Testament do not speak of the soul's life after death (some modern scholars think they are silent on this matter only to avoid endorsing the animism that was extremely widespread among Semites). In this matter, we must establish that:
a) The entire Old Testament is directly and immediately focused not on the afterlife but on God. Yet, in this focus is implicitly included the belief in immortality, as the Savior indicates: "He is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive." [Luke 20:38]
b) It is also certain that God, in this matter too, gradually led His chosen people to a higher religious standpoint. He did not bypass the normal spiritual development Deus ex machina-style, but incorporated His revelations about the afterlife and thus about immortality into the phases of this development.
c) Finally, it should not be overlooked that Scripture does not treat immortality as an abstract philosophical proposition but presents it in a tangible form, associated with the resurrection of the body.
In the first phase of revelation, due to the vagueness of concepts and perceptions regarding the afterlife, the sacred writers were influenced by the impression of experience: this present life, with its definite forms, joys, and colors, speaks to man; compared to it, the existence in the afterlife seems colorless, joyless, shadowy [Job 10:21, Psalms 88:12 114:17, Isaiah 38:18, etc.]; although it is not the same for the righteous and the wicked [Deuteronomy 32:22]. And the passing of this earthly life, the seemingly uniform march of all living into death, tunes the Old Testament contemplator to melancholy [Job 14:7–14, Ecclesiastes 2:14–16, 3:11–22, 6:6 9:4–6, etc.].
Yet, even the oldest books of Scripture are aware of the soul's life after death:
a) Jacob refers to his and his fathers' earthly life as a pilgrimage [Genesis 47:9; cf. Hebrews 11:9.]
b) descending into Sheol, being gathered to one's ancestors, often does not simply mean burial [Genesis 15:5 25:8 35:29 37:35 49:32.]
c) evidence includes the prohibition and fact of conjuring spirits [Leviticus 19:31 20:6.27; Deuteronomy 18:11; 1 Samuel 28:7-9]
Nincsnevem, I agree the bible does not rule out dualism (nor deal it rule out materialism, or idealism perse, one can read scripture with different metaphysical lenses).
Nevertheless you say:
"Nonetheless, it leaves no doubt about the higher origin of the human soul and its nature, which is essentially different from the body: God breathes the breath of life directly into humans, whom He created in His own image, unlike the animals, among which there is none like him; only humans have 'neshamah' (a rational soul). The soul is not subject to the fate of the body; thus, it has a different kind of existence: "The dust (the human body) returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" [Ecclesiastes 12:7; Ezekiel 37:7,10]. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." [Matthew 10:28; cf. 16:26] It draws a parallel with the spirituality of God: "For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." [1 Corinthians 2:11] The soul has the capacity for truth recognition [Job 20:3, 32:8; Exodus 28:3; Psalms 138:14], thus it is different from the soul of an animal."
your citing of Ecclesiastes 12:7, and Ezekiel 37:10 ... perhaps this points to an immaterial aspect of the human person, I think it does; but it certainly does not mean that this immaterial aspect is the subjective self that can continue as the subjective self independent of it's embodiment. "The Spirit" could very well be something akin to the Hegelian Geist, or Stoic Pneuma, as opposed to the Cartesian "soul," in fact biblically it's more often used in the former way.
There are scriptures that hint in your direction, as you say. Nevertheless, there are explicit texts that simply state that conscious existence ends at death.
I think one should take the explicit texts as explicit and interpret the more vague ones in light of that.
BTW, although I don't believe we have conscious subjective existence post mortum, I do take Luke 20:38 to be true in a non-metaphorical sense, not that we exist as ipsieties, but that our "spirit" has returned to God to be re-souled, re-embodied, and thus ressurrected as a conscious subject.
I don't think it is possible to be a conscious subjective self without a body unless you are God, and none of us are God, therefore the only way we can BE a conscisous subjective self that can have an I thou relation is if we are embodied, i.e. an enspirited body, a soul, when we die that only happens when God ressurects us, i.e. enspirits a body with the spirit that returned to him.
that's my view at least.
@Roman
Here is a whole book about the subject: Salmond, Stewart (1903). The Christian Doctrine of Immortality:
http://ia804709.us.archive.org/14/items/christiandoctri04salmgoog/christiandoctri04salmgoog.pdf
"Nevertheless, there are explicit texts that simply state that conscious existence ends at death."
Hmmmm... "explicit texts", are you sure? Which text precisely? I suppose you are refering to Ecclisiastes 9:5. May you pleas read my notes about this verse?
https://justpaste.it/5qnzm
In short: there are many other examples in the Bible of Scripture presenting an idea without calling us up to identify with it. Like: "Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”" (Psalm 14:1) In such cases, biblical inspiration does not mean to the correctness of the outlined idea, but to the accuracy of the account. So this "one-liner" "proof text" cited by JWs here is a passage that even the inspired writer did not intend to teach as infallible and final revelation, rather, it presents the thought process of the narrator pondering the path and the meaning of life. The other argument is that "the dead know nothing at all" does not mean that the dead are unconscious, annihilated and nonexistent, but that they have no knowledge of anything "under the sun" (since they are in the Sheol).
Another verse that is often cited is from Psalms 146:4, but "bayyovm hahu avedu eshtonotav" rather means "on that very day his shining plans/bright thoughts perish". At most, it only proves that his plans no longer exist, they are gone, which is quite logical if the guy has passed away :) The term "eshton" does not refer to a person's entire thought process (mind) but only a very small portion of it. Essentially, "bright, grand thoughts," or something similar. Compared with similar scriptural verses, it is much more likely that the bright thoughts refer to plans related to earthly life. The Scripture speaks in many places about how human plans for earthly life, if they ignore the will of the God and the finitude of earthly life, can be very fragile.
The Greek word in the LXX is DIALOGISMOI. Greenfield interprets it as "reasoning, speculation, thought, meditation, plan." If we trust in earthly dignitaries, when they die, their plans are thwarted, and we are left without help.
This Psalm here contrasts the trust in the flesh with trust in God. Although the dead's plans, thoughts, ideas, and business agreements are unreachable for the living (these "perish" from the "under the sun" perspective), God is always there (preserves faith forever).
Compare Psalms 88:5 and Isaiah 55:7.
That's not what the passage actually says, verse 5 and 6A are general, 6B refers to their not having any share under the sun.
TO say the living know that they shall die and the dead no nothing, but have the latter meaning "under the sun" would make the passage meaningless, it's like saying fish swim, but humans do not (when they are not in the water), if all he was saying is that living people know they will die on earth, but dead people don't know anything "ON EARTH" (beceause they are no longer on earth) you'd basically have a pointless toutology. I don't think any exegete would read the verse that way.
Psalms 146:4, עֶשְׁתֹּנָה means thoughts .... what lexicon are you using? in the LXX it uses διαλογισμός, not at all "plans related to earthly life" ... just means reasonings/thoughts.
These passages are pretty straight forward, if we have to engage with that type of eisegesis to get the doctrine I say just drop the doctrine, the passages are straight forward and explicit.
Roman,
Sorry that my time and energy have been scanty here lately, but I'm working more and have other projects in the works. I did want to make a brief reply for now and point out that (in response to Hart) that Christian materialism (physicalism) is much different from secular materialism although there is no one set version of Christian materialism.
Secondly, I don't think that dualism or introducing non-material elements solves the problem of consciousness or personal identity problems either. In fact, despite a proliferation of dualist theories, the problem of consciousness and personal identity have both remained.
Thirdly, a number of theorists challenge the idea that anyone is a stable "I" much less one that transcends his/her physical constitution.
Do we need something additional to reason, remember, use language, feel and express emotions? As I've mentioned at other times, I just don't see why these things can't all be accounted for in physical/biological terms. Not all will agree, but I think biology and neuroscience (among other disciplines) shed more illumination on consciousness than dualism does. IMHO, even supervenience is better than substance dualism.
On the other hand, Roman, thanks for interacting with Nincsnevem
@Roman
Have you read my notes regarind Ecclesiastes 9:5? There are far more arguments there. Moreover in a biblical context, if you compare it with 1Samuel 20:39, 2Samuel 15:11, and 1Timothy 6:4, it is quite absurd to interpret "knows nothing" as unconscious, annihilated, or non-existent.
The word that means "plans" in Psalm 146:4 is "עֶשְׁתֹּנֹתָיו" (pronounced "eshtonotav"). This Hebrew word is derived from the root "עשת," which is not commonly used in modern Hebrew. In the context of this verse, it refers to the person's plans, thoughts, intentions, or projects—essentially, anything they intended to do or accomplish, which ceases to exist upon their death. The interpretation of 'eshtonotav' as referring to "general consciousness" stretches beyond the traditional understanding of the word in this specific verse. In Psalm 146:4, the term more directly translates to "plans," "intentions," or "purposes." It focuses on the cessation of a person's earthly endeavors and ambitions at the time of death.
The interpretation of this verse as evidence that human consciousness ceases upon death is not directly stated, and the context indicates that this verse itself emphasizes the end of a person's earthly existence and activities. The leap to general consciousness ceasing requires additional theological context and interpretation, often drawing on a broader set of scriptural texts and doctrinal beliefs.
Compare Ben Sira 3:24, which in Hebrew reads: "rabim eshtonot bnei adam u'dimyonot ra'ot mit'ot." In the context of Ecclesiasticus 3:24, the word "עֶשְׁתֹּנוֹת" (eshtonot), found in the Hebrew version of this text, refers to "investigations" or "inquiries." The context of Sirach 3:24 deals with the limitations of human wisdom and understanding compared to God's infinite wisdom. In this verse, "eshtonot" underscores the theme of humility and the recognition that human endeavors to understand all things can lead to confusion and error without relying on divine guidance. The text advises against the pride that can come from excessive reliance on one's own intellectual capacities, emphasizing that many human "investigations" or "inquiries" (eshtonot) can lead to misleading conclusions or a misguided sense of self-sufficiency.
Thus, in Sirach 3:24, "eshtonot" conveys a sense of the mental or intellectual pursuits that humans engage in, particularly those that attempt to comprehend the complexities of the world and existence without acknowledging the limits of human understanding and the necessity of divine wisdom. Thus, the interpretation of "eshtonotav" in Psalm 146:4, informed by its use in Sirach 3:24, encompasses a broader reflection on the human condition: our shiningm ambitiousm intellectual efforts, plans, and investigations are ultimately temporary and limited in scope, reinforcing the message of humility and reliance on divine guidance beyond our finite understanding.
Regarding the greek term "dialogismos", compare Luke 9:47.
The commentary on Psalm 146:4 by different medieval Jewish scholars provides a rich tapestry of interpretations around the meaning and implications of "eshtonotav" and the verse as a whole.
Malbim interprets the verse as illustrating the departure of the spirit from the body, which then returns to the earth, as echoed in Ecclesiastes 12:7. He emphasizes that with the departure of the spirit, a person's "eshtonotav" - understood as their plans or endeavors - perish. Malbim highlights the futility of placing trust in transient things, suggesting instead that trust should be placed in the eternal. His interpretation focuses on the spiritual and moral lesson to prioritize eternal values over temporary, worldly ambitions.
Metzudat David also focuses on the moment of death, when the vital spirit leaves the body, and the body returns to the earth. He notes that on that day, all of a person's thoughts or plans are lost because they cannot be actualized anymore. This commentary underlines the finality of death and the cessation of all earthly endeavors, emphasizing the importance of actions over intentions, as intentions cannot be brought to fruition once life ends.
Radak explains that the departure of the spirit signifies the end of a person's ability to achieve salvation or fulfill their plans. He interprets the verse as a reflection on the lack of control humans have over their life force, with death coming suddenly and all plans or thoughts perishing with it. Radak's interpretation points to the precariousness of human life and the vanity of relying on one's own capabilities or plans for salvation.
Romemot El offers a profound spiritual and ethical interpretation that connects the cessation of a person's plans at death with a lack of spiritual focus and generosity during their lifetime. The commentary suggests that the reason for the cessation of a person's plans at death is their failure to adhere to God and their focus on dispersing wealth for righteousness, such as giving to charity, which could secure trust in God for sustenance. Instead, their wealth leads them to forget the day of death and to engage in earthly plans, such as building palaces and secure dwellings, without remembering mortality. The commentary emphasizes that death is a moment when the spirit departs and the body returns to the earth, marking the end of all earthly endeavors and desires. It uses future tense to stress the certainty of this event, indicating that death and the return to dust are imminent for everyone, making all worldly plans and desires ("עשתונותיו") futile at the moment of death. The cessation of "eshtonotav" at death serves as a stark reminder of the transient nature of worldly pursuits compared to the lasting impact of spiritual and charitable actions. It underscores the biblical wisdom of investing in what is eternal and God-centered, rather than being consumed by temporal desires and plans. Romemot El thus offers a rich theological perspective on Psalm 146:4, connecting the verse's mention of the end of human plans at death to broader themes of spirituality, morality, and the proper use of wealth. It calls readers to reflect on their priorities and the legacy they choose to build, emphasizing the importance of a life centered on God and service to others over material accumulation and personal achievements.
Across these commentaries, "עשתנותיו" (eshtonotav) is generally understood as referring to a person's plans, thoughts, or intellectual endeavors. There's a shared emphasis on the transience of life and the futility of placing hope or trust in mortal plans that cannot withstand the inevitability of death. The commentators underscore a spiritual lesson about the importance of focusing on eternal values and the limitations of human agency in the face of mortality. Each interpretation, while unique in its emphasis, collectively highlights the biblical theme of human humility and the prioritization of divine over earthly pursuits.
In the Aramaic Targum, the word "זִמְיוֹנוֹי" (zimyonoi) corresponds to "his plans" or "his intentions" in English. This term, like its Hebrew counterpart in the original Psalm (עֶשְׁתֹּנֹתָיו - eshtonotav), refers to the thoughts, intentions, or designs a person has during their lifetime, which come to an end upon the person's death. The Targum continues to emphasize the transient nature of human life and the futility of earthly endeavors in the face of mortality, aligning closely with the message conveyed in the Hebrew text of Psalm 146:4.
Metzudat David on Ecclesiastes 9:5
Metzudat David provides a more detailed psychological and ethical analysis:
9:5:1: The living know they will die, which causes fear of judgment and repentance for sins.
9:5:2: The dead know nothing, implying there is no benefit in knowledge after death as it doesn't lead to repentance.
9:5:3: There is no further reward for the dead since they cannot perform commandments to receive reward.
9:5:4: The memory of the dead is forgotten, contrasting with the living who can still repent or perform commandments and be remembered positively.
Rashi on Ecclesiastes 9:5:1
Rashi interprets the verse as a reflection on the importance of repentance while alive. The living know they will die and can repent, but the dead cannot gain further reward for actions done after their death. He uses a parable about preparing on the eve of Shabbos to enjoy its fruits, likening life to preparation time for the afterlife.
Ta'alumot Chokhmah on Ecclesiastes 9:5:1
This commentary suggests that the righteous are constantly aware of their mortality and thus live in fear of death to avoid sinning. In contrast, the dead, considered wicked, know nothing and did not contemplate death or its consequences, focusing instead on earthly pleasures.
Torah Temimah on Ecclesiastes 9:5:1
Torah Temimah elaborates on a discussion between Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Yonatan, where Rabbi Chiya advises Rabbi Yonatan to lift his fringes to avoid disrespecting the dead, assuming they might be aware. However, Rabbi Yonatan cites Ecclesiastes 9:5 to argue that the dead know nothing. The commentary further distinguishes between the righteous, who are considered alive even in death, and the wicked, who are considered dead even in life.
Interpretive Themes
Across these commentaries, several themes emerge:
Consciousness and Awareness: The living have awareness of death and the potential to change (repent), whereas the dead lack awareness and the ability to act.
Ethical and Moral Implications: This awareness of mortality should motivate ethical living, repentance, and the fulfillment of commandments.
Memory and Legacy: The living can affect how they are remembered through their actions, but the dead's ability to influence their legacy ceases.
The Righteous vs. The Wicked: There's a moral distinction between the righteous, who remain cognizant of death and its implications, and the wicked, who ignore these realities.
These interpretations collectively underscore the vanity of earthly life and the importance of moral and spiritual preparation for death, a central theme in Ecclesiastes.
Let's see the Talmud:
Berakhot 18a:14
Rabbi Yonatan said to him: Do the dead know so much? Isn’t it stated: “And the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5)? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If you read the verse, you did not read it a second time, and if you read it a second time, you did not read it a third time, and if you read it a third time, they did not explain it to you properly. The meaning of the verse: “For the living know that they will die, and the dead know nothing and have no more reward, for their memory has been forgotten” (Ecclesiastes 9:5): For the living know that they will die, these are the righteous, who even in their death are called living. An allusion to this is as it is stated: “And Benayahu, son of Yehoyada, son of a valiant man of Kabze’el, who had done mighty deeds, he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow” (II Samuel 23:20).
Berakhot 18b:3
In contrast to the righteous, who are referred to as living even after their death, the verse states explicitly: “The dead know nothing.” These are the wicked, who even during their lives are called dead, as the prophet Ezekiel said in reference to a king of Israel who was alive: “And you are a slain, wicked prince of Israel” (Ezekiel 21:30). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: “At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses the dead shall be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6). This is puzzling. As long as the accused has not been sentenced to death, he is alive. Rather, this person who is wicked is considered dead from the outset.
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2:3:15
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: A person may not enter a cemetery and relieve himself there. When he did it anyway, about him the verse says (Prov. 17:5) “He who makes fun of the poor blasphemes his Maker.” Clarification: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Jonathan were walking before the bier of Rebbi Simeon bar Yose bar Laqonia when Rebbi Jonathan stepped over his grave. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to him: About that they will say, tomorrow they will be with us but they hurt us. He answered him, do they know anything? Is it not written: (Prov. 9:5) “But the dead do not know anything.” He told him: you know how to read, you do not know how to preach. (Prov. 9:5) “The living know that they will die”, these are the Just who even in death are considered living; “but the dead do not know anything;” these are the wicked who even in life are called dead. From where that the wicked even in life are called dead? It is said (Ez. 18:32) “For I have no pleasure in the death of the dead;” how can a dead person die? But these are the wicked who even in life are called dead. And from where that the Just even in death are considered living? It is written (Deut. 34:4) “And He said to him: This is the land I had sworn to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to tell.” Why does the verse say “to tell”? He said to him: go and tell the patriarchs that all I had promised I fulfilled to your descendants after you.
Since when does the teaching about th resurrection exclude the conscious existence between physical death and resurrection? Resurrection represents "recreation" only in the theeology of annihilationist denominations (lacking any precedents in the church history and history of theology). We also profess the resurrection of the body. Immortality and resurrection relate to each other as shell and core, as beginning and end. Resurrection is one way of believing in immortality. It can only be imagined if life after death can be imagined at all. However, resurrection does not mean that a person "comes out" of heaven (since it is not a place, as I mentioned above), but that the body also resurrects and glorifies and unites with the already glorified soul. You may read this:
https://t.ly/PHJeh
Point 2-5
About the Sleep as a metaphor for Death, check these up:
https://justpaste.it/ep23s
https://www.bible.ca/d-death=sleep.htm
The phrase "she is asleep" implied that for Christ to resurrect her is like waking a sleeping person. By this Jesus implied nothing about whether the dead consciously exists in Sheol, or not.
Nincsnevem, for Ecclesiastes 9:5 I’m going off of commentaries I’ve read. I see your notes, much of it is very shaky exegesis (Ecclesiastes 12:5, 7, 14 in no way teach conscious existing post-mortem), I addressed the under the sun comment. As far as resurrection and eternal life, I think that a historical reading would lead one to believe that the author did not believe in a resurrection and eternal life … however, he does not explicitly state this, nor does he explicitly rule it out (the personal subjective belief of any biblical author, however we can reconstruct it, is not determinative of theology, though it is helpful for exegesis which is necessary for theology)
In a Biblical context one has to do the constructive work which includes taking clear passages like Ecclesiastes 9:5 as primary.
For Psalm 146:4, I don’t know if there is any Hebrew word which is explicitly equivalent to “general consciousness,” so that’s not much of an argument. But that word does pretty much sum up the content of consciousness (plans, thoughts, intentions), is it the plans thoughts and intentions of humans? Of course, but for conscious existence after death, those things would have to survive. If there is conscious existence after death but the content of the consciousness has no analogy to the human’s consciousness, in what sense is it the same person? Obviously what Psalm 146:4 was saying is the whole person dies, including his consciousness.
As far as medieval scholars, although I certainly have a high respect for medieval philosophy, metaphysics, and theology, when it comes to the historical understanding of the Hebrew bible they are by no means authoritative, they are not close enough to the sources to be contextually relevant, and they were not actually using the tools of historical exegesis.
BTW, the options are not recreation (like making a copy) or continued conscious existence, there are many other models available.
Bro Foster, I don't believe dualism is the right answer, at least not substance dualism, I think some kind of idealism is gonna have to be where it is (btw, for what its worth, one sees this becoming more popular in more contemporary panpsychist and idealist theories, not to mention various interpretations of quantum mechanics).
What physical and biological theories do is provide mechanisms and that coincide with certain abilities, but this is not to address the issue any more than a physicist mapping out mathematically the regularities of the physical universe is accounting for the order of the universe. What the biologist does is show the objective corollaries to subjective life.
The only way, but the biologist takes for granted the very metaphysical issue in question: i.e. that there is a coherent subjective whole. I think the ability to "reason," "use language," "feel and express emotions," don't account for personhood or consciousness, they presuppose it.
When it comes to supervenience, it seems to me that if one takes it as a metaphysical theory (i.e. we aren't doing the Wittgensteinian reduction to language), one will probably have to believe in something like Platonism (the reality of forms) or Dialectical Idealism (the reality of relations that have properties not held by the relata, that can be instantiated, and thus supervene, on matter, classically understood), such that the physicalism is just a light form of idealism.
But then you have the emergence problem where you either just have magic, or the matter already have properties of that which will supervene on it in potential of some sort (like a kind of panpsychism), or that there is some more fundamental reality that brings about the supervenience (like Augustinism), or that matter is just an abstraction of what is fundamentally relational and mindlike (idealism), such that the supervenience is more just looking at a dialectical relation.
But either way, I certainly don't think substance dualism is true.
If you look up the term "limbus patrum", you will know that those who died before Christ's redemptive work were not in heaven or purgatory back then according to Catholic theology, but at best within the "sheol", in the part designated by the name "Abraham's bosom" or "paradise", waiting for the salvation.
EOB footnotes:
HELL AND HADES
The King James Version caused confusion by translating both Greek words ᾅδης (hades) and Γέεννα (gehenna) as “hell”. This is often reflected in older Orthodox liturgical texts which say that “Christ descended into hell”. Properly speaking, “hell” is theologically equivalent to gehenna or to “the lake of fire” of the “second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). On the other hand, hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew שְׁאוֹל (sheol) – the common place or state of the reposed. Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22) were understood as places or conditions within hades-sheol. Hence, the spirits of the righteous of old, as well as that of the repentant thief and of our Lord went into hades, but not into hell (gehenna or “the lake of fire”). The EOB makes this important distinction.
Check it up:
https://www.bible.ca/7-Seventh-day-Adventism-RENOUNCED-by-D-M-Canright.htm#c22
Chapter XXII - The Nature of Man
By the way "avdu eshtonotav" means in colloquial Modern Hebrew something like "He lost his temper", or "lose his wits", implying confusion or panic, today the word Ashtonot is used mainly in the meaning of self-control.
Linguistically, scholars look at the root of "עֶשְׁתֹּנָה" and its occurrences in biblical and post-biblical Hebrew to ascertain its meaning. The root "עשת" is not widely used in the Hebrew Bible, which makes the interpretation somewhat challenging. Most scholars and interpretations lean towards understanding "עֶשְׁתֹּנָה" (eshtonah) as referring specifically to the cessation of a person's plans, intentions, or "bright thoughts" at the time of death. This view is supported by the context of the verse and the broader biblical theme that human endeavors, plans, and thoughts are temporary and come to an end with mortality. This interpretation aligns with the translation of "עֶשְׁתֹּנֹתָיו" in the Aramaic Targum as "זִמְיוֹנוֹי" (zimyonoi), suggesting a focus on the person's deliberate intentions or designs that cease to exist upon death. This interpretation is supported by the context of the verse, which contrasts the transient nature of human life and endeavors with the eternal and steadfast support of God.
In summary, Hebrew scholars generally interpret "עֶשְׁתֹּנָה" as referring to the thoughts, plans, or intentions of an individual that perish at death, highlighting the transient nature of human life and endeavors in contrast to the eternal nature of God. This interpretation is derived from a combination of linguistic analysis, theological considerations, and the broader context of biblical teachings on the human condition.
Why would Christ base any of his parables on an allegedly false belief? Why not interpret the OT in the light of the NT, and why the other way around?
"What about this omitted verse in Revelation 2:7?" - What is omitted? The Byzantine Majority Text includes "μου" (my) after "τοῦ Θεοῦ" (of God), personalizing the statement to "of my God," which is not present in the critical editions. The Textus Receptus specifies the location of the tree of life as "ἐν μέσῶ τοῦ παραδείσου" (in the midst of the paradise), adding a spatial descriptor not found in other versions which simply state "ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ" (in the paradise). All these do not affect its fundamental meaning.
According to the NT, everyone will be resurrected, that is, physically brought back to life, and not for the purpose of getting a second chance. It is important to know that the New Testament Greek uses two different terms for "life": one is βίος (bíos), and the other is ζωὴ (zōḗ). The word 'bíos' is used to describe mere biological functions or existence, from which the word biology is derived. In contrast, 'zōḗ' suggests some kind of surplus or additional quality.
When Jesus speaks of the "righteous" receiving "eternal life" (zōḗ aiṓnios, ζωὴ αἰώνιος), it is important to clarify, that "eternal life" is not equivalent to mere infinite temporal existence: eternal life is not simply life that lasts forever or infinite existence, nor merely an extension of life. The distinctive quality of this life, zōḗ, is a lasting relationship with God and His beloved Son, therefore something much greater and richer than simple infinite existence.
'Zōḗ aiṓnios' means infinite temporal existence in an unending relationship with God, not just temporal existence. However, every soul has infinite existence, even if it does not have 'zōḗ aiṓnios'. "Eternal life" (zōḗ aiṓnios) is indeed a gift. But there is an existence (bíos) that is not a gift, which is so tormenting that people would rather seek death instead (Revelation 9:6).
A sinner in hell does not have zōḗ aiṓnios, only an endless bíos. This distinction is forgotten by the JWs when they argue from the biblical statement that "eternal life," or zōḗ aiṓnios, is the privilege of the saved, then how "the wicked" can exist forever. However, this contrived opposition lacks the requirement of scholarly exegesis and is obviously an eisegesis born out of a compulsion to conform to the annihilationism adopted from Adventists. The opposite of "eternal life," zōḗ aiṓnios, is not "eternal non-existence" in the sense of annihilation, but "eternal death," where "death" does not mean annihilation but separation from God. Thus, damnation is eternal 'bíos', mere existence without true "life" (zōḗ), i.e., without a relationship with God.
What do you mean by that? Do you think that theology does not know that these words have a wide range of meanings? For example, modern languages also have this, the word "heart" has a completely different meaning in a medical textbook than in a literary work, like a poem.
Let me recommend you a book:
Hans-Walter Wolff: Anthropology of the Old Testament
https://archive.org/details/anthropologyofol0000wolf
https://vdoc.pub/download/anthropology-of-the-old-testament-43u9i7mkshr0
One thing is the message, the scope of the parable, and another thing is the question that what he built the scheme of the parable on is allegedly false teaching, why would he have done that. Well, by the same logic, why couldn't he have told a parable about extraterrestrials? The fact is that the Pharisees, unlike the Sadducees, did believe in a soul that consciously survives physical/bodily death, and Jesus did not correct this teaching, but it seems that he gave a parable that he built on this very belief, that is, with practically confirmed it.
It is not convincing to object that Jesus only used a popular legend here, for if the situation described in the parable cannot be true, then Jesus would have reinforced a mistake (as evidenced by the fact that Christians in almost every age took this parable as teaching!)
Please read this:
https://justpaste.it/7y3d1
https://www.bible.ca/su-extinction-refuted.htm
Post a Comment