Does the Soul or Spirit Carry Consciousness?

[Eliyahu]

We all can, if we're in the presence of the Lord.
I believe David has been doing it for the last 3,000 years,
and Moses for the last 6,000 years.

Wrong ! Moses lived and died only 3500 years ago.:laugh:

 

[Andre]

I think we need to remember that the correct question to ask is not

"Is there any possible way, even one that is awkward, to fit a Scriptural text into my present view?"

but instead should be:

"What interpretation best makes sense of all the relevant texts, my present view or another view"

One can always muck about with word meanings and stretch things to the point of silliness to force-fit texts into a theology that is brought to the text.

In this and other posts, I offer my take on how a set of texts have to be seen by, on the one hand, the "traditionalists" - those who believe we go straight to Heaven in a conscious state when we die and, on the other hand, by the "soul sleepers" who believe that we enter an unconscious state at death.

"Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
"If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
"You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands.." (Job 14:13-15).

Traditionalist: has to argue that "remembering me" refers to "remembering to give me a body to wrap around an already fully conscious soul that has been praising Me (God) for hundreds or thousands of years". This really stretches the sense of "remembering" - if the believer has been consciously in God's presence, it makes little sense to talk of God remembering a person He is in intimate active relationship with. Do you say "I remember you" to your wife who you see every day? Same thing with longing, except here the force-fit is even more awkward. It makes absolutely no sense to long for a creature that has been in your presence worshipping you (God) for hundreds or thousands of years.

Soul-Sleep: this position honours the nominal sense of "remembering" and "longing". One only longs for something that has been absent from us and we certainly do not need to remember something that is immediately present to us.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know nothing..." (Ecc 9:5)

Traditionalist: Since this view requires that the believing dead are already in heaven in full flower of knowledge and consciousness, one needs to invent a different category of "knowing" - things the body knows and are lost at death. And of course, these things cannot be known to the soul / spirit since that entity maintains its knowledge after death. Never mind the fact that the text never mentions whether it is "body" knowledge or "spirit" knowledge that is addressed here. We have to read that in. And of course, there is no clear sense of what is "known" to the body and not known to the spirit.

Soul-Sleep: Interprets the text as it reads - the believer is in an unconscious state and therefore indeed knows nothing.

More soon...

 

[TCGreek]

I think we need to remember that the correct question to ask is not

"Is there any possible way, even one that is awkward, to fit a Scriptural text into my present view?"

but instead should be:

"What interpretation best makes sense of all the relevant texts, my present view or another view"

One can always muck about with word meanings and stretch things to the point of silliness to force-fit texts into a theology that is brought to the text.

In this and other posts, I offer my take on how a set of texts have to be seen by, on the one hand, the "traditionalists" - those who believe we go straight to Heaven in a conscious state when we die and, on the other hand, by the "soul sleepers" who believe that we enter an unconscious state at death.

"Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
"If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
"You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands.." (Job 14:13-15).

1. This does not prove your soul sleep view.

Traditionalist: has to argue that "remembering me" refers to "remembering to give me a body to wrap around an already fully conscious soul that has been praising Me (God) for hundreds or thousands of years". This really stretches the sense of "remembering" - if the believer has been consciously in God's presence, it makes little sense to talk of God remembering a person He is in intimate active relationship with. Do you say "I remember you" to your wife who you see every day? Same thing with longing, except here the force-fit is even more awkward. It makes absolutely no sense to long for a creature that has been in your presence worshipping you (God) for hundreds or thousands of years.

Soul-Sleep: this position honours the nominal sense of "remembering" and "longing". One only longs for something that has been absent from us and we certainly do not need to remember something that is immediately present to us.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know nothing..." (Ecc 9:5)

2. Is soul sleeping NOW KNOWING NOTHING? Wow!

Traditionalist: Since this view requires that the believing dead are already in heaven in full flower of knowledge and consciousness, one needs to invent a different category of "knowing" - things the body knows and are lost at death. And of course, these things cannot be known to the soul / spirit since that entity maintains its knowledge after death. Never mind the fact that the text never mentions whether it is "body" knowledge or "spirit" knowledge that is addressed here. We have to read that in. And of course, there is no clear sense of what is "known" to the body and not known to the spirit.

Soul-Sleep: Interprets the text as it reads - the believer is in an unconscious state and therefore indeed knows nothing.

3. Yet, you cannot find one text that reads the way you are interpreting it. You are forced to put your own spin on what the Bible say is death.

More soon...[/QUOTE]

 

[Andre]

More examples comparing a "traditionalist" perspective to a "soul sleep" perspective:

"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)

Traditionalist: Even though we all know that the distinctive characteristic of "awaking" is the regaining of consciousness, this is fatal to the traditionalist view. So we need to re-interpret "awaking" away from its common sense meaning and embrace a view where such awaking involves absolute no increase to the fully awake state we are already experiencing in Heaven. And we have to agree that it is the flesh house that enters eternal life - not our spirit which already has it.

Soul-Sleep: Interpret the text according in a manner that is consistent with what it means to "awaken" - everybody is called forth from an unconscious "sleep" state and the redeemed only begin to experience eternal life after that awaking - just as the plain sense of the text asserts.

In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. (John 14:2-3)

Traditionalist: I have no idea how the traditionalist makes sense of the temporal order here. The text clearly has Jesus' return preceding the "receiving of the saints unto Him". I suppose they need to argue, yet again, that it is simply the bodies of the saints are will be received unto Jesus after his second coming - the spirits having already been with Jesus for hundred or thousands of years. And yet again, this important qualifier has to be read into the text.

Or, perhaps, to avoid the above problems the traditionalist has to beleive that "coming again" refers to Jesus' immediate resurrection, not his return at the end of this present age. At least this would not force one into the awkward position of explaining how it makes sense to "receive unto Jesus" someone whose conscious essence is already in Jesus' presence. But that doesn't make sense either since this would imply that all these people will have to drop dead at Jesus resurrection so that they can indeed be received into His presence in heaven.

Soul-Sleep: Take the text as it reads - when Jesus comes again, the redeemed dead indeed are received into Jesus' presence. Being unconscious, they are not in any concscious sense in his presence already. So there is no need to perform backflips to explain anything.

 

[Andre]

1. This does not prove your soul sleep view.

Do you think that you do not need to actually critique the content of my argument rather than simply claim that it is incorrect?

3. Yet, you cannot find one text that reads the way you are interpreting it. You are forced to put your own spin on what the Bible say is death.

And I suppose that "the dead know nothing" as in Eccl 9:5 is to be read as "their spirits know lots and only the bodies know nothing even though this distinction is not made in the text".

I, on the other hand, take the text as it reads:

The....dead.....know.............nothing.

To show I am a sporting fellow, I think that the best way for the traditionalist to approach Eccl 9:5 is to actually claim that Solomon is here expressing his "uninspired" view and is not expressing the factual truth about life after death. If Solomon's words are to be taken as the word of God, they pretty much speak for themselves...the dead know.........nothing.

 

[TCGreek]

Do you think that you do not need to actually critique the content of my argument rather than simply claim that it is incorrect?


And I suppose that "the dead know nothing" as in Eccl 9:5 is to be read as "their spirits know lots and only the bodies know nothing even though this distinction is not made in the text".

I, on the other hand, take the text as it reads:

The....dead.....know.............nothing.

To show I am a sporting fellow, I think that the best way for the traditionalist to approach Eccl 9:5 is to actually claim that Solomon is here expressing his "uninspired" view and is not expressing the factual truth about life after death. If Solomon's words are to be taken as the word of God, they pretty much speak for themselves...the dead know.........nothing.

1. If you let them speak for themselves, would you get "know nothing" to mean soul sleep? Tell me!

2. When does "know nothing" mean soul sleep? It seems like to get that view a person would have to put that into the expression "know nothing."

3. I suggest that you read on and get what Solomon is really saying:

Let's look at this text:

4.But there is hope for whoever is joined with all the living, since a live dog is better than a dead lion.

1. There's an advantage to being alive.

5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no longer a reward for them because the memory of them is forgotten.

2. In respect to death, the dead don't need to know that, for they are already dead. Again, there's an advantage to being alive.

6 Their love, their hate, and their envy have already disappeared, and there is no longer a portion for them in all that is done under the sun.

3. Again, there's an advantage of being alive and not dead, for the dead cannot contribute to the living.

4. I encourage you to read this verse in context. Let the text speak for itself. There's nothing here to support SOUL SLEEP. Absolutely nothing!

 

[DHK]

Wrong ! Moses lived and died only 3500 years ago.:laugh:

I think you are right. I must have been thinking about the wrong date.

 

[BobRyan]

All that "ceases" at death gives us a "clue" as to why God calls this dormant state "sleep"

Hint: This is why in Matt 22 Christ insists that "God is NOT the god of the Dead". Because in the state of death the PERSON -- is asleep "Lazarus Sleeps" not "Lazarus' decaying body sleeps instead of decaying"

Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity

Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity

Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Isaiah 38
18"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19"It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

 

[BobRyan]

Those are examples of texts that in context intend to deal directly with what activity is available to you while dead.

Mortal MAN –

Man is mortal –

Ps 22
29All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship,
All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.


No thought activity
Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity


Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

 

[skypair]

To show I am a sporting fellow, I think that the best way for the traditionalist to approach Eccl 9:5 is to actually claim that Solomon is here expressing his "uninspired" view and is not expressing the factual truth about life after death. If Solomon's words are to be taken as the word of God, they pretty much speak for themselves...the dead know.........nothing.

Andre, Bob -- the dead DO know what is going on. Look at Rev 6:9-11. These are the SOULS of the dead from earth arriving into heaven. Guess what. They know what they experienced and they plead for vengeance.

Your tangential "proofs" of "soul sleep" are completely false.

skypair

 

[Andre]

1. If you let them speak for themselves, would you get "know nothing" to mean soul sleep? Tell me!

Perhaps I have been less than 100 % precise. When I say "soul sleep", it is my shorthand way for asserting that the dead, redeemed and non-redeemed alike, are in a state with zero consciousness between the time of physical death and the time, at Jesus' 2nd coming, when they are called forth.

So my position aligns perfectly with what Solomon writes: "the dead know nothing". I believe that you think that consciousness continues after death. How, then, can the dead know nothing?

3. I suggest that you read on and get what Solomon is really saying:

Let's look at this text:

1. There's an advantage to being alive.

2. In respect to death, the dead don't need to know that, for they are already dead. Again, there's an advantage to being alive.

3. Again, there's an advantage of being alive and not dead, for the dead cannot contribute to the living.

4. I encourage you to read this verse in context. Let the text speak for itself. There's nothing here to support SOUL SLEEP. Absolutely nothing!

Of course there is an advantage to being alive. This is because Solomon sees the afterlife as being a state of no consciousness as he states - the dead know nothing. If Solomon believed that the redeemed go to a blissful conscious state after their death, why would he be arguing that there is an advantage to being alive? It would be far better to die and go to Heaven.

You also seem to be twisting the statement "the dead know nothing" into "the dead cannot contribute to the living". This is a fundamental change in meaning.

I will let Solomon's words speak for themselves:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know nothing.

I am taking these words simply as they are written: the dead have zero knowledge. It is you who appear to want this to read "the dead cannot interact with the living and yet they still know things since they are in Heaven".

 

[Andre]

Andre, Bob -- the dead DO know what is going on. Look at Rev 6:9-11. These are the SOULS of the dead from earth arriving into heaven. Guess what. They know what they experienced and they plead for vengeance.

Your tangential "proofs" of "soul sleep" are completely false.

skypair

Here is some material from NT Wright that addresses this (as well as addressing other relevant issues):

What then do the New Testament writers mean when they speak of an inheritance waiting for us in heaven? This has been much misunderstood, with awesome results in traditions of thought, prayer, life and art. The point of such passages, as in 1 Peter 1.4, 2 Corinthians 5.1, Philippians 3.20, and so forth, is not that one must ‘go to heaven’, as in much-popular imagination, in order to enjoy the inheritance there. It is rather that ‘heaven’ is the place where God stores up his plans and purposes for the future. If I tell a friend that there is beer in the fridge, that doesn’t mean he has to get into the fridge in order to enjoy the beer. When the early Christians speak of a new body in heaven, or an inheritance in heaven, they mean what St John the Divine means in Revelation 21: the new identity which at present is kept safe in heaven will be brought from heaven to earth at the great moment of renewal. Yes: the great majority of Christian expressions of hope through the middle ages, the reformation, and the counter-reformation periods have been misleading. ‘Heaven’ is not the Christian’s ultimate destination. For renewed bodies we need a renewed cosmos, including a renewed earth. That is what the New Testament promises.

The third way in which early Christian belief about resurrection is significantly different from that of second-Temple Judaism is that, particularly in Paul, ‘the resurrection’ has split into two. Paul still sees ‘the resurrection of the dead’ as a single theological event,7 but it takes place in two phases: first the Messiah, then at his coming all his people.8 This too only makes sense within second-Temple Judaism, but it is something no second-Temple Jew had said before. Resurrection had been a single all-embracing moment, not a matter of one person being raised ahead of everybody else.

These modifications and sharpenings of the Jewish belief demand a historical explanation, and we shall come to that presently. But there were other modifications as well. Those Jews who believed in resurrection developed, as we saw, ways of speaking about the interim state of those who had died, ways of holding on to the belief that the physically dead had not entirely ceased to exist, but that they were still ‘there’ to be raised again on the last day. The early Christians, seeking to say the same thing, used some of the same language but some different expressions as well. They spoke of people being ‘asleep in Christ’. Revelation speaks of the souls under the altar who wake up, ask what time it is, and are told to go back to sleep again.

The whole text of Rev 6 is so charged with symbolic imagery that it is difficult to see it as expressing literal truth - references to a lamb, a horse whose rider is named death, star falling to the earth even the strange notion of disembodied souls resting under a physical altar.

I think one might be stretching things to see, in this obviously symbollic and allegorized context, the cry of these souls as evidence that the redeemed dead go to a conscious state immediately upon death. I suggest that it is an allegorical device, not intended to express the actual state of affairs of the redeemed dead. After all, if this is literal, and one believes the souls of the redeemed dead in Heaven are immaterial, what are they all doing crammed under a material altar?

 

[TCGreek]

Perhaps I have been less than 100 % precise. When I say "soul sleep", it is my shorthand way for asserting that the dead, redeemed and non-redeemed alike, are in a state with zero consciousness between the time of physical death and the time, at Jesus' 2nd coming, when they are called forth.

So my position aligns perfectly with what Solomon writes: "the dead know nothing". I believe that you think that consciousness continues after death. How, then, can the dead know nothing?


Of course there is an advantage to being alive. This is because Solomon sees the afterlife as being a state of no consciousness as he states - the dead know nothing. If Solomon believed that the redeemed go to a blissful conscious state after their death, why would he be arguing that there is an advantage to being alive? It would be far better to die and go to Heaven.

You also seem to be twisting the statement "the dead know nothing" into "the dead cannot contribute to the living". This is a fundamental change in meaning.

I will let Solomon's words speak for themselves:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know nothing.

I am taking these words simply as they are written: the dead have zero knowledge. It is you who appear to want this to read "the dead cannot interact with the living and yet they still know things since they are in Heaven".

Still Solomon doesn't say that and you have paid no attention to the context, which seems to be your way of doing things.

 

[Andre]

Still Solomon doesn't say that and you have paid no attention to the context, which seems to be your way of doing things.

Readers will judge which argument is correct (if either is).

 

[DHK]

Readers will judge which argument is correct (if either is).

TCGreek is correct. You have consistently paid no attention to the context of verses quoted from the Book of Ecclesiastes and from Psalms.

 

[Andre]

TCGreek is correct. You have consistently paid no attention to the context of verses quoted from the Book of Ecclesiastes and from Psalms.

Let the reader judge the content of the respective arguments - I ask no more from them.

 

[DHK]

God the Father was never asleep. I am not sure about Jesus. But this is not the point of the OP. The OP is about the "human person". You are welcome to try the "if X is true about Jesus's spirit, it must be true about ours", you are welcome to go that route. But please provide a scriptural and / or logical argument to that effect (and, of course, please also show scripturally why we are to believe that Jesus was, in fact, in a conscious state).

I would put forward the following from Romans 10:9 to support the proposition that it was indeed the Father that raised Jesus from the dead:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If you can show clearly that Jesus was conscious after his death and if you can make the case that "what's true for Jesus' spirit must be true for ours" then you will have made some progress.

As far as the divinity of Christ is concerned, the Godhead cannot be separated. Christ is and always has been the second person of the trinity.
You just quoted a Scripture showing the Father's involvement in the Resurrection. Now consider:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
--This shows the involvement of the Holy Spirit

John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
--This shows the power of Christ himself to raise up his own life.

Luke 23:46 And Jesus, having cried with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. And having said this, he expired. (Darby)
--He actively committed his spirit, (his own human spirit) to the Father, and then he died--Note the definition of death--the separation of the spirit from the body. The body was dead without soul or spirit, was shortly taken down from the cross and consequently buried in the tomb. His spirit, not the Holy Spirit, he had committed to the Father, and his spirit activel went to the Father. In no way was he ever unconscious, asleep, unaware of his surroundings. If he were at anytime, then the second person of the Godhead would be as good as dead, and God would have lost control of the universe. This is an impossible scenario. It is blasphemous even to think this.

 

[Andre]

Luke 23:46 And Jesus, having cried with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. And having said this, he expired. (Darby)
--He actively committed his spirit, (his own human spirit) to the Father, and then he died--Note the definition of death--the separation of the spirit from the body. The body was dead without soul or spirit, was shortly taken down from the cross and consequently buried in the tomb. His spirit, not the Holy Spirit, he had committed to the Father, and his spirit activel went to the Father.

As usual, you are engaging in circular reasoning, presuming the very matter at issue. Here you invoke the existence of a "defintion" that death = separation of physical body from consciousness-bearing spirit. Where, and I want specific verse please, is that "definition" to be found?

Just list one verse that unambiguously shows that the spirit bears consciousness.

 

[webdog]

As usual, you are engaging in circular reasoning, presuming the very matter at issue. Here you invoke the existence of a "defintion" that death = separation of physical body from consciousness-bearing spirit. Where, and I want specific verse please, is that "definition" to be found?

Just list one verse that unambiguously shows that the spirit bears consciousness.

There is no verse that states "The Spirit bears consciousness". That still doesn't mean it's not true, though. Scripture alludes to it in many places, some given here.

 

[Andre]

There is no verse that states "The Spirit bears consciousness". That still doesn't mean it's not true, though. Scripture alludes to it in many places, some given here.

Let's see if Paul's treatise in 1 Cor 15 makes sense if people's conscious spirits are already in Heaven when Jesus returns.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him

The traditionalist has to insert "body" into the "will be made alive" statement, since many people are already otherwise alive and fully conscious in Heaven when Jesus returns, and have been for hundreds rot thousands of years.

The last enemy to be destroyed is death

if people have been in Heaven for hundreds or thousands of years, death seems to have already been destroyed. If Fred is happily in heaven in spirit form, death has already been destroyed for him unless one wants to re-define death to have the concept apply only to the flesh house that the spirit inhabits and not to the very essence of the person - their consciousness-bearing spirit. The objective reader is invited to consider the reasonableness of such a re-definition.

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"

Again, to believe that saints are presently in full flower of glorious conscious existence is to suggest that death has already been swallowed up in victory, despite Paul's claim that this only occurs after bodily resurrection.

This entire passage of 1 Cor 15 is so full of drama, so full of a sense of a future victory over death (remember, this is all about what happen when Christ returns to raise the dead). Look at the language - Jesus hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power, He has put all his enemies under his feet, and the last enemy to be defeated is death.

This all sounds like overblown fanfare if all that is happening is that fully conscious spirits are lining up to get new "suits".

I suggest that Paul's inspiring language communicates that what is going is a real victory - a victory where death is transformed into life, not one where already full and glorious lives are merely handed a body.