Does the Soul or Spirit Carry Consciousness?

[webdog]

You seem to think that it is common knowledge, or an otherwise obviously self-evident fact that people have this consciousness-bearing immaterial soul / spirit. I have granted that, at least in a sense, there is indeed a 'non-physical' component to the human person. But no Scripture to this effect has been provided in this thread (the closest being 2 Cor 5:8 but I hope to flesh out my argument that, in order to be consistent with texts like 1 Cor 15, Paul must be talking "phenomenologically" in 2 Cor 5:8). There are other ways in which the traditional take on 2 Cor 5:8 is vulnerable.

Some things are such common sense Scripture is not needed. You don't need Scripture to prove a combustion engine works, why 1 + 1 = 2, or how aerodynamics come about. Scripture tells us we are made in God's image. I believe that to be body (Christ) and Spirit (God the Father and Holy Spirit)
We are also told from Scripture to fear the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Everyone will be resurrected at some point.

Are you not assuming that human persons, by sheer logical necessity alone, have to have a consciousness bearing immaterial soul / spirit? This idea is so deeply ingrained in western thought due to a capitulation to Platonism, that it is sometimes accepted as a self-evident truth.

Western thought?!? I'm not following. If our consciousness is not in our immaterial...and it's most definately not in our material...where is it?

 

[Eliyahu]

When I sleep tonight (and am therefore in state of unconsciousness), am I dead?

This needs some psychology and the hypnosis.

Are you sure that you are in the state of unconsciousness when you sleep?

In Hypnosis, they believe there is a layer between the consciousness and unconsciousness which can be broken by the hypnosis.

But remember this, our souls will remember what we did with our bodies.

 

[Andre]

Genesis 1.

Let's set the record straight.

I have asserted several times in this thread that it is conceptually possible for humans persons to be effectively made up by bringing together an immaterial spirit that does not bear consciousness with a physical body, which also does not bear consciousness, and for the resulting integrated entity to exhibit consciousness. I have given 2 examples from the real world where it simply is not true that one or the other of two components that go into making up some "thing" must bear some property that the overall thing exhibits. I could give many more. There simply is no logical grounds for ruling out the following assertion: A spirit that does not exhibit the property of consciousness is combined with body that also does not exhibit this property with the result being a "person" who does exhibit this property.

Sometimes the sum is indeed greater than the sum of the parts.

DHK attempted to undermine this position by claiming that my examples were somehow disanalogous - that life is in a special category, with the implication that the spirit component of the human person has to bear the property of consciousness. He appealed to the principle of "biogenesis" in this respect.

Even if it were true that life only gives rise to life - this is irrelevant to the assertion that, in the case of the human person, neither component (the spirit or the body) need in and of itself be capable of sustaining consciousness.

I happen to agree with Genesis 1 - that life came from a living God. But it simply does not logically follow that one or the other of the constituents that make up that life have to bear the property of consciousness.

The biogenesis thing and the Genesis 1 thing is a tangent - no one has made a case that the spirit part of the human has to bring consciousness into the mix and therefore be the vessel that carries it out at death.

To really focus this down. My claim that entities that are made by combining A and B sometimes exhibit properties that neither A nor B will exhibit on their own is not undermined by the fact that I illustrate this concept by examples that do do not come from the domain of "life".

 

[Andre]

This needs some psychology and the hypnosis.

Are you sure that you are in the state of unconsciousness when you sleep?

In Hypnosis, they believe there is a layer between the consciousness and unconsciousness which can be broken by the hypnosis.

But remember this, our souls will remember what we did with our bodies.

My point is that DHK was arguing that my suggestion that Jesus might have been in an "unconscious" state after he committed his spirit to God was equivalent to a claim that Jesus was dead.

Here are the exact words:

When given the evidence that Christ gave up his human spirit unto the Father: "Into thy hands I commend my spirit," you denied his conscious spirit in heaven, and thereby declared Christ (God) dead!

I was simply showing the incorrect reasoning here - whether I am really unconscious when I sleep is not the point. It is simply not correct to equate a claim a person is unconscious with a claim that a person is dead.

 

[webdog]

I happen to agree with Genesis 1 - that life came from a living God. But it simply does not logically follow that one or the other of the constituents that make up that life have to bear the property of consciousness.

I think the burden of proof would lie on you to show that.

 

[Andre]

But it simply does not logically follow that one or the other of the constituents that make up that life have to bear the property of consciousness

I think the burden of proof would lie on you to show that.

The proof follows. Note that this is not an argument that the spirit does not carry consciousness - you asked me to prove that "it simply does not logically follow that one or the other of the constituents that make up that life have to bear the property of consciousness":

In order to prove the absence of such logical necessity, all I need to do is find one example that violates the following assertion "A"

A: When an object X combines with an object Y to create an object Z, all of the properties of Z have to be present in either X or Y or both.

Counter-example: X = Light bulb, Y = electricity, Z = light bulb energized by electricity.

Z has the property of giving off light
X does not have this property
Y does not have this property

A counter-example has been identified, therefore there is no logical necessity that assertion "A" be true. If there were logical necessity, no counter-examples could be identified.

Because there is no logical necessity associated with the general assetion A, there is no logical necessity with the following particularization of it (P):

P: When a spirit combines with a body to create a human person, all of the properties of a human person, and therefore consciousness in particular, have to be present in either spirit or body or both.

 

[BobRyan]

What is the Scriptural evidence that there exists an immaterial soul / spirit "component" to the human person that has the specific property of carrying, bearing, or otherwise containing the attribute of consciousness?

Scripture states that "the PERSON" is dormant - sleeps in death

"Those WHO have fallen asleep" 1Thess 4.

"Lazarus SLEEPS I go that I may wake HIM" John 11.

"We shall not all SLEEP but we shall all be changed" 1Cor 15.

But at the same time we are never told that the "body sleeps" in death - rather the body is "this decaying tent" 2Cor 5 that is being destroyed. In 1cor 15 we are told that that which you sow is not what you reap it dies and goes into the ground.

 

[BobRyan]

So you are suggesting they are given their rotted bones, their 1,000 year old bodies back that have broken down into whatever basic elements? Is this the suggestion? I see believers being resurrected and given glorified bodies but I see no place unbelievers are reconstituted physically anywhere. The stark difference may not be made in the form of an elementary sentence stating, "Oh by the way, unbelievers don't get their rotted, decomposed and broken into elements of carbon and so on back and neither do they get a glorified body"

Actually 1Cor 15 states clearly that the body raised is NOT the body that decayed an turned to dust!

35 But someone will say, ""How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?''
36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;
37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.


42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

 

[Andre]

It can be taken "phenomenologically" but it doesn't have to and the text doesn't indicate that force in its use.

Here is 2 Corinthians 5:

Quote:
1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7For we walk by faith, not by sight

8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Paul makes the context clear, it is in the context of literally either being in the body and absent from the Lord or absent from the body and present with the Lord. Interestingly Paul adds in the 10th verse the judgment seat where, when we are present with the Lord (and absent from the body) we are accounting for the things done in the body. A bit difficult to account without being conscious, eh?

First of all, this argument is obviously circular - you are simply stating that it is clear that Paul believes the human person can only exist in these 2 states - in the body or present with the Lord.

This is not fair argumentation. You cannot simply assume this - I have not simply assumed that the text has to be read phenomenologically. I hope that I have been careful to only, to this point anyway, assert that a phenomenological reading is plausible.

And verse 10 works perfectly well with my position - when a person is raised bodily and appears at the judgement seat, they are indeed conscious. On my view, consciousness exists only when body and spirit are brought together and integrated into a human person - in this case a resurrected human person.

If you can give more details as to why this text forces us to conclude that Paul believes in conscious existence of the believer before resurrection, please do so.

If I say that "I would rather be absent from Yale and present at Princeton", does this mean I think I am going to magically beam from Yale to Princeton? No. The lack of an explicit statement about an intermediate period does not rule such a period out.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

First of all, this argument is obviously circular - you are simply stating that it is clear that Paul believes the human person can only exist in these 2 states - in the body or present with the Lord.

This is not fair argumentation. You cannot simply assume this - I have not simply assumed that the text has to be read phenomenologically. I hope that I have been careful to only, to this point anyway, assert that a phenomenological reading is plausible.

There is nothing circular about it, Paul presents it that way, I don't construct the argument that way. Secondly, you appeal to the plausible rather than what is plain in the text. A destructive practice for sound reasoning but even more so, disingenuous regarding the claim of wanting to know the truth. When the truth is plain and the text is plain you ignore it and reach for the plausible.

If I say that "I would rather be absent from Yale and present at Princeton", does this mean I think I am going to magically beam from Yale to Princeton? No. The lack of an explicit statement about an intermediate period does not rule such a period out.

No it doesn't mean you would be magically present at Princeton. However, the physical laws of movement here on earth and the supernatural order of the soul/spirit after death are not identical at all, quite obviously, so your analogy fails immediately. The passage makes it clear that when a believer CAN BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY (he is referring to death of course)...and Paul makes it contextually obvious that it is with the Lord. Paul makes it clear that we can be absent from the body and even if we weren't with the Lord we are still absent from the body. In Paul's case he places us in the presence of the LORD, while absent from the body. SO AGAIN, are you suggesting God, through Paul, is teaching us that when we are PRESENT with the LORD and absent from the body there is no consciousness? IS THIS REALLY what you expect someone to believe from this passage?

 

[Andre]

There is nothing circular about it, Paul presents it that way, I don't construct the argument that way. Secondly, you appeal to the plausible rather than what is plain in the text. A destructive practice for sound reasoning but even more so, disingenuous regarding the claim of wanting to know the truth. When the truth is plain and the text is plain you ignore it and reach for the plausible.

You are free to suggest that I am disingenuous. Let the reader, as always, judge the quality of the arguments on either side of the issue - whether points have really been defended. You are, again, simply claiming that the text says what you believe it to say.

You need to construct an actual argument, not just present text that can be interpreted in different ways - at least as an isolated text. I ask any reader at all to point out in what post you have actually made an argument that Paul cannot be talking phenomenologically in 2 Cor 5:8. Just claiming that he isn't will not do the job.

It is clear that the phenomenological reading is a possible reading - as is yours. I have not yet presented my case as to why I think the phenomenological reading is correct. But, unlike yourself, I am not merely making my claim and expecting people to accept its correctness.

If someone says "You can't put too much mustard on a hot dog" there are 2 plausible interpretations:

1. More is better - the more mustard, the better the hot dog tastes.
2. Too much is bad - there a limit to the amount of mustard before the hot dog starts to taste bad.

Same with "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

Both your reading and my reading are plausible - they are candidates for the correct interpretation. And cases then actually have to be made to choose between the two.

Again, there is no doubt that my reading is entirely consistent with the entire section of 2 Cor that you posted.

If it is indeed true that there is an intervening period of consciousness - a possibility that you must grant if you are engaging in a serious debate - then the statement: "I would rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord" is entirely consistent with such a possibility. Why? Because it is entirely plausible that Paul is taking the perspective of a subject of experience. People do this all the time - that is why my position is possible. Here is just one example of a "subject of experience" statement that is not intended to be taken as an objectively true "third person" statement:

"I was hit in the head with the baseball and then I opened my eyes in the hospital."

I have stated several times that I have not yet provided a defense as to why I think the phenomenological reading is correct and the "literal" reading is wrong.

You need to the same. And I hope you are not going to claim that all statements in the scriptures are "literally true as written". You are invited to try that route if you wish.

 

[DHK]

You need to construct an actual argument, not just present text that can be interpreted in different ways - at least as an isolated text. I ask any reader at all to point out in what post you have actually made an argument that Paul cannot be talking phenomenologically in 2 Cor 5:8. Just claiming that he isn't will not do the job.

If the text presents truth, and in comparison with other Scriptures does not contradict the rest of the Bible, then it needs to be believed. The problem is one of belief. Instead of accepting your interpretation, isolated from the rest of the Bible, which does not agree with this text, you choose to disbelieve the Scripture. The meaning has been given. It is in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Now it is up to you whether or not to accept it.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's set the record straight.

I have asserted several times in this thread that it is conceptually possible for humans persons to be effectively made up by bringing together an immaterial spirit that does not bear consciousness with a physical body, which also does not bear consciousness, and for the resulting integrated entity to exhibit consciousness. ".

Good point. The Biblical case is that the spirit is not active, not conscious apart from the body. As long as the person is in the dormant sleep state of death "God is NOT the god of the dead" Matt 22 accordng to Christ - if you view that dead person APART from the future resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Good point. The Biblical case is that the spirit is not active, not conscious apart from the body. As long as the person is in the dormant sleep state of death "God is NOT the god of the dead" Matt 22 accordng to Christ - if you view that dead person APART from the future resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

Christ yielded his (human) spirit to God.
If Christ was at any time in history unconscious, then Christ (God) was dead. You have a problem houston.

 

[BobRyan]

I never claim that people are God. I maintain that Christ alone was in that role.

How about you?

 

[DHK]

I never claim that people are God. I maintain that Christ alone was in that role.

How about you?

Christ was totally man and totally God at the same time. His sufferings on the cross were the sufferings of a man. Thus he could say: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me."
And again: Into thy hands I commend my spirit.
He was speaking of his human spirit, that same spirit that every man has. And every believer will one day give up his spirit to God as Christ did. Christ did not go into a sleep. There is no soul sleep with Christ. He is not unconscious, nor did remain so until his resurrection. He was very much alive. His spirit was alive and active before the resurrection, as will be every believer's before the resurrection. Christ is our example. Your theory does not fit. If you force your theory into Scripture you must declare that God died.
It is the only logical conclusion that one can come to. How could God lose consciousness? Absurd!

 

[BobRyan]

Christ walked on water - we don't.

Christ was transfigured in Matt 17 -- that does not happen to us when we go to the top of a mountain.

Christ was God to the point that he could pay for the debt owed by all the sins for all the world -- not other humans.

I am not making claims about the "nature of the God-man in death while in the tomb".

Those who view themselves as being equal with God and not really dying are making an argument similar to "you shall not surely die... you will be like god".

I have already read about the problems with that doctrine in Genesis 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Christ walked on water - we don't.

Christ was transfigured in Matt 17 -- that does not happen to us when we go to the top of a mountain.

Christ was God to the point that he could pay for the debt owed by all the sins for all the world -- not other humans.

I am not making claims about the "nature of the God-man in death while in the tomb".

Those who view themselves as being equal with God and not really dying are making an argument similar to "you shall not surely die... you will be like god".

I have already read about the problems with that doctrine in Genesis 3.

in Christ,

Bob

You really do have a problem here don't you. At times, in the ministry of Christ, He chose to do miracles to substantiate his claim of deity. The greatest claim to deity lie in His resurrection. No other religious leader then, before then, or since then, has ever been able to duplicate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our entire faith is founded upon the cornerstone of the resurrection.
However, one of the great reasons why Christ could die for our sins is that he was a man, not just any man, but a perfect man free from all sin. His divinity did not die. He died in his humanity. It was He in his humanity that died. He could have called 12 legions of angels, he said. But he didn't. He could have called fire down from heaven. But he didn't. He laid aside all his divine powers and suffered as a man would suffer. Thus as a man he committed his spirit to the Father. That is what He says. We must take the Scripture at face value or not take it at all.
Thus if Christ committed his spirit into the hands of the Father, and was alive forevermore; the same can be said of every believer when they die. They commit their spirits to the Lord, and are alive forever more. They do not sleep. Further evidence is given here.

Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
--Why did Stephen see Jesus "standing" on the right hand of God. We are told elsewhere that he sits on the right hand of God. Why was he standing. He was standing with outstretched hands welcoming Stephen's spirit home into heaven. Stephen's body was stoned and left for dead. But Stephen himself (his spirit) went straight to be with the Lord. One can deduce nothing else but that conclusion from this passage.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
--Why would he pray this prayer if he knew it would not be answered? All the believers at that time had the expectation that their spirit at the time of death would go straight to heaven. There was Jesus waiting to receive his spirit. And there was Stephen asking Jesus to receive his spirit. Nothing could be any clearer. There is no soul sleep. The spirit doesn't sleep. It goes straight to heaven to be with Lord.

Acts 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
--What fell asleep? His body fell asleep. Stephen went to be with the Lord, as has already been demonstrated.

 

[BobRyan]

At times, in the ministry of Christ, He chose to do miracles to substantiate his claim of deity. The greatest claim to deity lie in His resurrection. No other religious leader then, before then, or since then, has ever been able to duplicate the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Kind of hard to believe that you have found something that we actually agree in one of your recent posts.

Nice to see that now and then.

DHK
His divinity did not die. He died in his humanity.

Although this is pure speculation and though I am inclined to agree with it -- it is not scripture.

But it makes a good story -- one that even I am inclined to agree with.

. Thus as a man he committed his spirit to the Father. That is what He says. We must take the Scripture at face value or not take it at all.

Indeed - Eccles 12:8 states that the spirit of all mankind goes back to God "who gave it" at death.

This is the dormant state for mankind in death.

In that Dormant state as Christ said in Matt 22 "God is NOT the god of the dead" and this is because the dead do not continue on in a relationship with God during death. Rather all their worship/memory/thought/praise relationship activities cease according to scripture.

But I do not know what the "God part" is doing while that human part is dormant for a God-man and never claimed knowledge of "that story" as my doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK argues from the case of Stephen

Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.


--Why did Stephen see Jesus "standing" on the right hand of God. We are told elsewhere that he sits on the right hand of God. Why was he standing.

The Bible does not say -- but I can imagine a "good story coming"

DHK

He was standing with outstretched hands welcoming Stephen's spirit home into heaven. Stephen's body was stoned and left for dead.

When you say "left for dead" are you arguing that careful review of Stephen's body would have revealed that instead of decaying and rotting in the grave - he was just sleeping?

But Stephen himself (his spirit) went straight to be with the Lord. One can deduce nothing else but that conclusion from this passage.

Only in the Eccl 12:8 sense that the spirits of all the dead "return to God who gave it" at death - but in the same dormant state that scripture states so that as Christ said "God is not the god of the dead" Matt 22.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

--Why would he pray this prayer if he knew it would not be answered?

He had to have known that scripture states that the spirit of man goes back to God at death.

I don't think this was in doubt.


Acts 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, HE fell asleep.

not "IT fell asleep".


What fell asleep?

His body was dead NOT asleep.
The closest possible review of the state of his decaying corpse would NOT show his body to be SLEEPING - but decaying and dead.

It would only be the spirit of Stephen that went into a dormant state - the Bible calls sleep for a spirit in the state of death.

in Christ,

Bob