Merely one perfect physical human life?

[Maxximiliann]

You are also wildly incorrect to presume I am attempting to persuade you that I am a better authority than those authoring the Bible.

Which is why you continually fail to persuade.

[Maxximiliann]

Your argument devolves, as I've stated before, into saying the Bible appeared from the Holy Spirit wielding humans as blind instruments, utterly devoid of knowledge themselves.

Here, let me fix your Strawman-

"Your argument devolves hinges, as I've stated before, into saying on the Bible appeared from the Holy Spirit wielding humans as blind instruments, utterly devoid of knowledge themselves having been penned by capable amanuenses inspired by Jehovah God's holy spirit to record his thoughts for our benefit and enlightenment.

Glad I could help



(Btw, you do know you can just ask if there's anything about my position that goes over your head, right?)

[jayceeii]

jc: Perhaps you are very young or have had no bad experiences, but I think it is more likely you are opposing me only for the sake of opposition, and failing to think realistically about the tragedies in life.  You are here arguing that people should remember all of their suffering in clear detail, no matter how painful or horrible. I'd have thought that to be a type of hell, and God's mercy would be in forgetting.

You misunderstand since a memory can be divorced from the pain experienced. Just ask mothers who've given birth naturally.

This reply occurs in a context where Maxximiliann is positing annihilation for Christians between death and the anticipated mass resurrection. He argues that soul = life force + body. The life force is drawn back to God like electricity, carrying no personal elements (and meaning a new life force must be brought, at the mass resurrection). The memories of the person, he posits, are stored in God’s Mind. As I asked whether God would restore bad memories and negative tendencies, he made up a new theory not held by other Christians, that God would restore memories but not negative tendencies (having no answer for why the negative tendencies were not withheld at the moment of the soul’s creation). He feels that for personal identity to remain intact, all memories must be restored, the good and the bad alike. Here he adds that bad memories are retained without pain.

Firstly, the theory is Maxximiliann’s alone, not appearing in the Bible or any Christian text. He offers no evidence for this theory except a private interpretation of poetic text.

Secondly, the remark appears sexist to me, as in, “the women will carry our babies and they’d better like it too.” He’s chosen an example that is clearly biased towards his case, ignoring the millions upon millions of humans who report that painful memories remain with them their entire life. Examples would be the survivors of the holocaust, torture or accident victims, victims of crimes, as well as people hurt emotionally in relationships.

To resolve the specific question it would seem we now need to stop the debate and have a poll of women, in other words he’s struggling to make it impossible to continue. I’d guess oppositely from him, that women will say they remember the pain and while agreeing birth to be a blessed event, would not have minded had the process been easier.

Thirdly Maxximiliann presents no argument for why it is OK to delete negative tendencies, but not bad memories. This appears to be a private bias, as he ponders how God is going to take everyone’s thoughts and emotions into His Mind, then return them. In fact when negative desires are stripped away, we may not have much left to the man. Negative desires have been driving the entire capitalist enterprise, and the population boom. If he expects to be restored after Judgment, he should ask for his desires back too.

Finally, besides revealing hostility and closed-mindedness, “You misunderstand,” does not amount to an adequate intellectual underpinning for what amounts to a major new epistemological proposition, namely that memories can be divorced from their feelings. Instead it appears to be a bully on a playground, pushing another down violently. One obvious objection to the new theory is that memories are now defined as “strippable,” which is to say the claim is made memories can be stripped of all emotional context. Once memories are defined this way, it logically follows that all memories are “strippable,” the good alongside the bad. Maxximiliann would need to find scriptural justification that God would only strip away only the emotions from bad memories, restoring the emotions from good memories, which again according to Maxximilliann, God has stored in His Mind after the body died and the life force went back to God.
As issue here is the nature of a memory, that Maxximilliann is defining as bipartite, whereas others might argue that to strip emotions from memories creates automatons.
The reason I’ve said prefacing this statement with, “you misunderstand,” to be hostile, is that it amounts to an attack against intellect and comprehension, by making a false presumption the situation is well-known by most. I have said it is closed-minded, because there seems to be no comprehension that the proposition is novel, nor that when new ideas are proposed it is not remarkable they need explanation, and are not immediately understood by all. In general it appears Maxximillian does not know what he has said.

[jayceeii]

jc: Ah, so it is your theory the negative tendencies will not be restored. The mechanism of purification you are proposing is that God will remember all aspects about the personality, but will reinstate the personality after a period of annihilation without its negative side.

No, not theory, fact:

"For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive." -1 Corinthians 15:22

Christ "gave himself for our sins so that he might rescue us from the present wicked system of things." -Galatians 1:4

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." -John 3:16

"For if by the trespass of the one man [Adam] death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness . .. through the one person, Jesus Christ!" -Romans 5:17 (Bracket mine.)

"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." -Romans 6:23

"Just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned . . . so too through one act of justification [Christ's ransom sacrifice] the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person [Christ Jesus] many will be made righteous." -Romans 5:12, 18, 19 (Brackets mine.)

mm: No, not theory, fact:

jc: I said “theory” because the ideas are not part of accepted Christian doctrine, but have been generated by mm in response to my challenge to find a solid teaching about the soul in the Bible. To answer this it is not valid to point back to the Bible, instead it must be shown other Christians are interpreting the Bible this way. Otherwise mm stands alone.

mm: "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive." -1 Corinthians 15:22

jc: mm is interpreting “will be made alive,” as in God supplying new “life force” at the mass resurrection. However to be “made alive” is a poetic expression that can have many interpretations, including the one I’ve listed, that the Holy Spirit enters human minds. The souls are dead in themselves, but God breathes life into them, through the Holy Spirit. It’s a process happening right now, as Christians are attesting though they don’t see the extent of it or quite recognize why it is necessary. You can’t quote poetry to make an explicit metaphysical point. Instead there’d need to be a book of “spiritual anatomy,” that has not been written on Earth, and surely wouldn’t be accepted today were it written.

mm: Christ "gave himself for our sins so that he might rescue us from the present wicked system of things." -Galatians 1:4

jc: The point of contention is not over a “rescue,” but interpreting a “rescue” as God annihilating the essence of people when they die, keeping their memories in His Mind to be restored later. Nonetheless I’d also disagree with Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’ intent.

mm: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." -John 3:16

jc: Why hasn’t mm said exactly how he expects this scripture to apply to his private theory? We’re left to do that for ourselves, since evidently he didn’t think it important enough for elucidation. In this case he’d be interpreting “everlasting life” in a particular way, which is that God revokes the “life energy” while storing the memories. Were it told to every new convert that God will steal their minds and life energy, none would remain! I guess they are only temporarily destroyed, at the death of this body, to be restored later.

mm: "For if by the trespass of the one man [Adam] death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness . .. through the one person, Jesus Christ!" -Romans 5:17 (Bracket mine.)

jc: mm is merely hammering away with scripture here, hoping some of it “sticks,” while not demonstrating the wherewithal to demonstrate how this is supposed to apply to his argument. It seems this regal poetry casts a kind of spell over his mind, making him feel falsely empowered. He says, “I have seen the scripture, it is mighty.” I say this is poetry.

I’d again disagree with Paul’s interpretation of the life of Jesus, but this is outside the current point, whether mm has spun a theory or is relating facts. Possibly (we don’t know because he isn’t saying), mm is arguing through these scriptures that God intends to restore men in a purified condition, but we haven’t yet accepted his notion of annihilation so he’s skipping a crucial step. Nowhere in the Bible is it explicitly said God intends to store humans in His Mind while revoking their “life energy.” There are more questions if this is accepted, such as whether negative tendencies are restored, but it is not accepted.

mm: "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." -Romans 6:23

jc: Again, mm should really be fleshing out his ideas, explaining to us how this scripture is thought to apply. Insofar as we can tell he selected these scriptures at random, since no explanations are given as he expects everything to be as self-evident to others, as it is to him. In any case “everlasting life” is not a sufficient phrase, to argue that God would restore humans in a purified condition after storing them in His Mind. Humans are alive already, in an impure condition. The quality of the life is not related, merely its duration.

mm: "Just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned . . . so too through one act of justification [Christ's ransom sacrifice] the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person [Christ Jesus] many will be made righteous." -Romans 5:12, 18, 19 (Brackets mine.)

jc: This scripture comes closer to applying to the argument, though again mm refuses to offer explanations, letting the words of others speak for him, perhaps having nothing to add. However to be “made righteous” is a poetic expression, not an explicit mechanism. We must first accept mm’s theory God will store humans in His Mind. If we did that, then this verse might confirm they’d be restored with negative tendencies removed. What if I accept the theory? It grows humorous, particularly if I can verify it doesn’t apply to me. Such a statement as God storing all men in His Mind, correlates with the Holy Spirit’s entrance into human minds. Yet, I must protest that God is not storing their evil, the presence of which is one of the greatest pieces of evidence we’re dealing with created souls making their own (bad and negative) choices. Evil does not truly enter God’s Mind.

There are further problems with the scripture here, as I reject most of what Paul believed. Here I could point out that if Jesus WAS Lord or God, there is no question of obedience. God does not obey Himself. This is a deep flaw in Christianity, including the depiction of the Holy Spirit saying that It was “well pleased” with the Incarnation. Jesus is the Father.

[jayceeii]

jc: You said Christ mentions that only those in memorial tombs would be resurrected, but then added your private interpretation not shared by other Christians, that, “In effect, this means all those who Jehovah God has chosen to keep in his memory will be recreated.”

On the subject of the Koine terms utilized to describe a burial place or tomb, A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament (1932, Vol. V, p. 87) states: “Taphos (grave) presents the notion of burial (thapto, to bury) as in Matt. 23:27, mnemeion (from mnaomai, mimnesko, to remind) is a memorial (sepulchre as a monument).” Related to mne·meiʹon is the word mneʹma, which has a corresponding meaning, referring also to “a memorial or record of a thing or a dead person, then a sepulchral monument, and hence a tomb.”​—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 2, p. 173.

Notably, inscriptions on the tombs of Israelite origin are incredibly rare and, when discovered, typically only have the name. The exceptional kings of Judah left absolutely no extraordinary monuments with their praises and exploits etched thereon, as did the kings of different nations. Accordingly this makes indisputable that the priority of faithful men of ancient eras was that their name remain in the “book of remembrance” discussed at Malachi 3:16.​—cf Ecclesiastes 7:1.

Taking into consideration the foundational concept of commemoration tied to mne·meiʹon, the usage of this expression (and not taʹphos) at John 5:28 concerning the resurrection of “all those in the memorial tombs” is especially apt and contrasts dramatically with the notion of total repudiation as well as effacement from all memory as depicted by Gehenna. (Matthew 10:28; 23:33; Mark 9:43) The emphasis placed on burial by the Hebrews is an indication of their concern that they be remembered, principally by Jehovah God in whom they had faith as “the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.” (Hebrews 11:1, 2, 6)

This argument is of the form, “We have the venerable elders with their arcane language.” It’s a reliance upon tradition, without reference to knowledge. Mm is presenting this information with an expectation “remembrance by God” should be understood existentially, whereas a more straightforward interpretation is that God would remember those who had impressed Him with their virtue, deeds, etc. I’d guess Jesus’ idea about Gehenna is that the people would not be worth remembering, and might receive a number in God’s Mind rather than a name, similar to how it is with animals.

[jayceeii]

I have watched the Holy Spirit stepping in to provide “aid” to human thoughts and emotions.

Prove it.

There's no need to prove it,

"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

As such, consider your claims dismissed.

It is more upon the Christians to prove they indeed possess “the Counselor,” than for others claiming to see the Holy Spirit enters them to prove this. This has been the primary argument for why prophets are no longer required, that they have “the Counselor” Jesus said He would send, giving them inner guidance so outer guidance is no longer needed.

To find a Christian admitting he does not possess “the Counselor,” would be finding one who admits he is in need of a prophet before he will know what God is like or what God wants from humanity before bestowing salvation. In this he would be opposed to the entire religion. He’d have to go on his own, searching for prophets that God might send.

It is to be pondered here too, that there might be no benefit to those who can see the Holy Spirit indwelling in men, to prove that they can see this to those men. Possibly such proofs can exist among friends, but to win Christians over to explicit admission of their own liturgies, so they’d be less hypocritical, is not likely to be an especially urgent goal.

[jayceeii]

The mechanism you propose would strip all personal identity from the people in question, amounting to annihilation.

The dead person? How can the dead retain their personality if they're, you know, dead?

I say the soul separates from the body at death.

God promised Adam and Eve, “As for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” (Genesis 2:17)

In turn Satan disaffirmed, “YOU positively will not die.” (Genesis 3:4)

Who do you believe? Jehovah God or Satan?

Are Adam and Eve dead or alive?

The point of mm’s argument, which he does not bring out because he regards it to be self-evident, would be that anything Satan says must be a lie, and if he told Adam and Eve they would not die, instead they will get annihilation. All of this is a new interpretation of scripture, unless mm can find other Christians who are teaching that soul = body + life force, and that God annihilates this at death, holding the personalities solely in His memory. Perhaps other Christians would say this if challenged over the lack of a biblical description of the soul, but they’d be making up their answers in parallel with mm, and no Christian currently has it as a theory because no one is truly concerned about the soul.

You also don’t know here what God meant by “positively die.” This is a poetic phrase, not a clear declaration of existential truth. Other interpretations are possible, that Christians have not seen. I’d agree it’s an unhappy fate, as man makes his own morality.

[jayceeii]

No, you have said exactly this. Let me quote your original words, that you've been re-quoting but seem to forget at your convenience. If I have not summarized your position accurately, please supply such a summary.

Concerning the anticipated resurrection of those who have died, Christ Jesus explicated, "Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life." (John 5:28, 29)

If you notice, Christ mentions that only those in memorial tombs would be resurrected. In effect, this means all those who Jehovah God has chosen to keep in his memory will be recreated. (cf. Matthew 19:28) Of course this entails storing an unimaginable volume of details, memories, experiences, features, qualities, attributes, genetic data, etc., etc. but this is perfectly feasible for our Almighty Creator. (cf. Isaiah 40:26)

So where is all of the life energy of all those who have died? At  Ecclesiastes 12:7 we read that when someone dies “the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.” Accordingly, much like electricity returning to a power supply, upon death a person's life energy or spirit simply returns to he who is the very source of all life, Jehovah God. (Psalm 36:9)

You're not actually suggesting that I am the author of John, Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, Psalms or Matthew, are you?

Mm is again leaving us in the dark about his exact train of reasoning, expecting others to understand what he is trying to say, without actually saying it. Since I did not make this assertion directly, we have to assume he thinks that I made it indirectly somehow, but that was certainly not my intent. I surely do not regard mm to be an authority of any kind.

He has failed to provide the summary I requested, if my summary was inadequate. In general he has argued that at death God draws the “life energy” back to Himself, like electricity. This life energy therefore seems to be held in a common store, and is not unique to individuals. This means that at the expected mass resurrection, God would need to activate a new region of “life energy,” completely different from anything going on while the human in question is alive today. At the same time we are told God will store the people in His Mind. Reacting to my queries, mm asserts God will strip all bad memories of their emotional force, neglecting to notice this means all memories are “strippable,” hence it is probable good memories are also stripped of their emotions. (None of this is in the Bible.) He has also said God will be purifying the souls, by annihilating all negative tendencies, though he hasn’t proved humans have anything else.

The force of mm’s objection here appears to be that he sees his mind as a direct extension from the Bible, authentically melding and unifying its teachings. He is not saying that he authored the books, but that these authorities had in mind exactly what he has in mind. Yet the Christians do not tell new converts God will steal their essence and store them in His Mind as they die. This is mm’s theory alone. If it becomes doctrine, the religion dies.

One trouble of the Bible and other religious revelations being so simplistic, is that all who read them presume they comprehend, that they have the authentic interpretation. This oversimplification has been a kind of honey trap, beguiling the “bears” who want to feel they are masters of their domain. It is possible to generate scripture that is difficult for humans to understand, and also impossible for them to sidestep as it points to sinfulness directly. In general the reasoning coming down from Heaven is trackless, which is to say since it arises from principles of pure spirit, any ignorant of spirit cannot follow its traces.

[jayceeii]

You are also wildly incorrect to presume I am attempting to persuade you that I am a better authority than those authoring the Bible.

Which is why you continually fail to persuade.

The religions were never attempts to persuade man. They are more like pillars for social guidance, according to the principles men can comprehend. A human who is persuaded, is still a human—and that might have negative repercussions. The truth is that human nature means humans can never deeply agree. In the religions it works out that each actually has a private interpretation, that does not match even those sitting next to him in the pews of his own sect (which in turn are in obvious disagreement with all other sects).

Yet mm is wrong, for even were I attempting to persuade him, I know that I must fail. He’s given me a diversion when others are not responding to me here, but I don’t expect it to come to a good end. I’m hoping to get more details from him about his newly derived existential theories, that he’s projected from a negative reaction to some of my posts. He’s showing certain weaknesses in Christianity, trying to build a case on flimsy scripture. In any case my ultimate success or failure, does not depend on my assertions.

[jayceeii]

Your argument devolves, as I've stated before, into saying the Bible appeared from the Holy Spirit wielding humans as blind instruments, utterly devoid of knowledge themselves.

Here, let me fix your Strawman-

"Your argument devolves hinges, as I've stated before, into saying on the Bible appeared from the Holy Spirit wielding humans as blind instruments, utterly devoid of knowledge themselves having been penned by capable amanuenses inspired by Jehovah God's holy spirit to record his thoughts for our benefit and enlightenment.

Glad I could help

(Btw, you do know you can just ask if there's anything about my position that goes over your head, right?)

An amanuenses is, “a person employed to write or type what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another.” In other words, a blind instrument of the Holy Spirit as I said! Otherwise it would be necessary to fill in what is meant by “capable,” when they do not know themselves, but merely record the words that God put into their heads.

This is also not formal Christian doctrine. New converts are not told the scriptures arose by entities “transparent” to the Holy Spirit’s purposes, nor is it in any way defined what “transparent” could possibly mean. It appears to be a form of mindlessness and ignorance. If God can speak directly through people, He hasn’t said very much as the Bible is missing any such mechanistic explanations, amounting to vague hand-waving.

I’d attest that God’s thoughts could not come through any creature, insisting this is part of Jesus’ meaning to say, “No one comes to the Father, but through me.” God is divine, but nothing that has been generated on Earth before is divine, including the revealed scriptures, failing to guide anyone to salvation. God must be having quite the laugh if people believe they have His Word, or that they could speak for Him, if the Lord is near.

The other two comments are dripping with derision, as mm evidently believes me to be dirt beneath his heel. Jesus said, “As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto me,” and I can testify that I have been “done unto.” I have not seen any wisdom from mm, only negative, hostile and ill-coordinated reactions, isolating fragments of my assertions while ignoring the whole and the questions I’ve posed that would help convince a rational person. Although I have asked many questions, he taunts me here, but I won’t ask more.

[Alter2Ego]

The mechanism you propose would strip all personal identity from the people in question, amounting to annihilation.

The dead person? How can the dead retain their personality if they're, you know, dead?

Maxximiliann:

Excellent rhetorical question.  There is scriptural support for annihilation.  A dead person does not have a personality since, according to scripture, someone who is dead no longer exists.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

[Alter2Ego]

The mechanism you propose would strip all personal identity from the people in question, amounting to annihilation.

The dead person? How can the dead retain their personality if they're, you know, dead?

You're begging the question, since this is the controversy between us. I say the soul separates from the body at death, you say the life force returns to the Creator with no further relation to the person, and that the Creator retains the memories and personality of the individual, to be restored at a later date. The fact is you do not really know what death is. You're thinking of a dead body, but you do not know what happened to the person inside the body. It is invalid to attempt to make reference to “common knowledge” about death, when this does not exist. Dead bodies are seen, not the inner processes.

You are also unable to provide scriptural support for your ideas, but appear to be making them up as you go along. What you have in the Bible is a collection of poetic verses, open to varied interpretations. No one else has ever stated your theory of “storage by Mind,” but also no one else has ever been challenged to find a solid teaching about the soul in the Bible. It can't be done, so you grasp at straws.

jayceeii:

There is no scriptural support for your belief that, to quote you: "the soul separates from the body at death."  According to scripture, the soul is the very same person who died.  I will provide scripture to support what I just stated after I hear back from you.


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

[jayceeii]

The mechanism you propose would strip all personal identity from the people in question, amounting to annihilation.

The dead person? How can the dead retain their personality if they're, you know, dead?

Maxximiliann:

Excellent rhetorical question.  There is scriptural support for annihilation.  A dead person does not have a personality since, according to scripture, someone who is dead no longer exists.

The human being does long for annihilation, and this explains the popularity of Buddhism and Hinduism. In Christianity it is less explicit, and it is not generally preached that the adherents will be annihilated completely (perhaps to be stored in God’s Mind), prior to going to Heaven. If this were preached the religion will lose popularity.

[jayceeii]

The mechanism you propose would strip all personal identity from the people in question, amounting to annihilation.

The dead person? How can the dead retain their personality if they're, you know, dead?

You're begging the question, since this is the controversy between us. I say the soul separates from the body at death, you say the life force returns to the Creator with no further relation to the person, and that the Creator retains the memories and personality of the individual, to be restored at a later date. The fact is you do not really know what death is. You're thinking of a dead body, but you do not know what happened to the person inside the body. It is invalid to attempt to make reference to “common knowledge” about death, when this does not exist. Dead bodies are seen, not the inner processes.

You are also unable to provide scriptural support for your ideas, but appear to be making them up as you go along. What you have in the Bible is a collection of poetic verses, open to varied interpretations. No one else has ever stated your theory of “storage by Mind,” but also no one else has ever been challenged to find a solid teaching about the soul in the Bible. It can't be done, so you grasp at straws.

jayceeii:

There is no scriptural support for your belief that, to quote you: "the soul separates from the body at death."  According to scripture, the soul is the very same person who died.  I will provide scripture to support what I just stated after I hear back from you.

Indeed, the neither the Bible nor any other religious text contains a clear teaching about the soul. Lay Christians, at least in the Lutheran church as I know from experience, do think about the soul as distinct from the body at times, but at other times they expect their bodies to be raised after Judgment. The reason for this ambivalence is that the minds are not experienced in spiritual realities, even to know themselves, to think clearly about this most vital of all topics. Mm’s theory is that the personality, memories, etc. are retained in God’s Mind when the body dies. This is not church doctrine, but something he was making up on the fly in response to some of my challenges. Do you agree with mm’s theory or do you have another of your own, as to how a dead personality can be restored?

In general people who don’t mind “handing off” their personalities to God or to annihilation, are not “awake” in the sense of valuing their own personal presence.

[Alter2Ego]

The mechanism you propose would strip all personal identity from the people in question, amounting to annihilation.

The dead person? How can the dead retain their personality if they're, you know, dead?

Maxximiliann:

Excellent rhetorical question.  There is scriptural support for annihilation.  A dead person does not have a personality since, according to scripture, someone who is dead no longer exists.

The human being does long for annihilation, and this explains the popularity of Buddhism and Hinduism. In Christianity it is less explicit, and it is not generally preached that the adherents will be annihilated completely (perhaps to be stored in God’s Mind), prior to going to Heaven. If this were preached the religion will lose popularity.

jayceeii:

Annihilation is explicitly indicated in throughout the Judeo-Christian Bible.  Throughout the Greek Scriptures aka New Testament, Jesus' disciples wrote of their hope of resurrection from the dead.  Below is one such example:

"I have a hope in God, which these men themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection, both of the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15 -- Christian Standard Bible)

Nowhere within scripture is there anything resembling the suggestion of a soul literally leaving the dead body that then continues to live in the "spirit realm."

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18