----------------------------------- seekinghokmah Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:17 am Re: Looking for proof, for or against, I don't have a side. ----------------------------------- So your contention is that since Lazarus et al are not recorded as having reported remembering anything from beyond the grave…we must therefore be “unconscious” in death? You advocate some form of the “soul sleep” doctrine then? Perhaps it would help if you actually explained what you DO believe occurs after death so I am not left guessing where you are coming from on this subject. Note that just because scripture did not record testimonies from the individuals you mention does not prove there was none, only that it wasn’t recorded. For a genuine example of consciousness after death I refer you to Jesus account of Lazarus and the rich man; note that this is not a parable but an actual account. When Jesus issues a parable He clearly states it as such and is subsequently recorded as offering the interpretation to His disciples. The context of the account of Lazarus and the rich man offers no suggestion of being a parable and contains no interpretation thereafter. Everything in which the breath Yes life comes from the creator…but the bestowing of the neshamah was clearly a special circumstance, the image of God, given only to man. While all creatures have a “breath of life” only mankind truly has free will. As noted, the Scriptures refer to the ru′ach, or life-force, as being not only in humans but also in animals. (Ge 6:17; 7:15, 22) Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 shows that man dies in the same manner as the beasts, for “they all have but one spirit Surely there is a difference in how the ruach functions within humans and animals? Rather than forcing the intended meaning of scripture into a narrow box based on a single word, and in this case the single instance of ruach being applied to animals, would it not be more prudent to examine it in the broader perspective of scripture as a whole and the contextual potentials of the word? You tend to use isolated passages as a means to force a preconceived interpretation rather than actually examining the deeper potential of said passage. I believe this to be a serious flaw in your approach to hermeneutics. You tend to employ isogesis rather than exegesis. Ruach alone does not prove humans are spiritually elevated compared to animals, but rather the potential to experience all five levels of the soul. When the Psalms speak of man’s thoughts perishing, or Paul stating that “the dead know not anything” this offers no valid argument for total oblivion in death…rather it simply indicates that we are separated from the physical realm both physically and mentally until the resurrection. None of this proves that we experience nothing at all in death, or that man is merely a physical being animated by a temporal “wind” also irrevocably tied to the physical. Hebrew tradition outlines four distinct “worlds” of which the physical realm is only one…and in fact the lowest. Ecclesiastes 12:7 states that at death the person’s body returns to the dust, “and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.” The person himself was never in heaven with God; what “returns” to God is therefore the vital force that enabled the person to live. So we are just puppets of the breath of God then? Mere illusions perpetrated by a deceptive puppet master who got bored? Please elaborate. I do not dispute that the body decays, nor even that the nefesh and possible ruach remain dormant in death, rather it is my contention that the neshamah persists and the last two levels remain potentially accessible in death. This all provides a perfect rational for the necessity of the resurrection, wherein the transformation of the physical into imperishable perfection enables us to finally come to the full realization of nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chaya and yechida simultaneously and in perfect and irrevocable unity! Agreed, I am content to note that the texts that you offer do not contradict the view that I espoused. True I do not follow the teaching of any man, I follow the teaching of jesus and his apostles. Yet you offer no convincing support for your views beyond the fact that you disagree with me (and a vast historical tradition amongst God’s chosen people) and that you choose to maintain your personal interpretation regardless. You do indeed follow the teachings of a man…yourself in particular. I feel compelled to ask if you are in any way affiliated with a particular group or denomination, as many of your views are indeed consistent with those of Jehovah’s witnesses and one particular offshoot of that following. I remain pleased to consider you a friend of course, certainly no less, I do not choose friends based only on whether we agree with each other. I would, however, encourage you not to be too quick to run from our discussion when we do not concur with our respective conclusions. Interpretation is a process, not a destination. Blessings, s.h.