Wow!!! Leolaia - In awe of your research. Thank you.
Soul Sleep: Looking for JWs do participate in a discussion
by JonahPine 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
RayPublisher
Raise your hand if just thinking about all the research Leolaia has done on this makes you tired!
-
Leolaia
Aww, thank you everyone for your nice comments. I should say though that it isn't as much work as it looks. On my bookshelf I have Nickelsburg's commentary on 1 Enoch, Bauckham's commentary on Jude-2 Peter, and Tromp's commentary on the Assumption of Moses (as well as many other resources), all of them very excellent and resourceful, and I also used the TLG corpus of ancient Greek texts and the Logos platform for other sources, and I like to pour over this stuff for my reading pleasure, and I'm very well versed in parabiblical literature, so its a rather easy matter to put this stuff together, and I've also clearly benefitted from the hard work of scholars in the field. Also I was able to reuse stuff I've done before; the comparisons of parallel texts to Jude is an updated and improved version of what I earlier did in my "Jude and 1 Enoch" thread, and the my first post above largely draws from a research post I wrote several years ago (which was a lot of work to put together, it took about a week to write).
And I learned some new things too thanks to this thread....I hadn't yet noticed the connection with 5:5 and 7:9 of the Assumption of Moses; I knew the quaerulosi bit but hadn't noticed the other stuff, so seeing those other parallels kind of blew me away. And now I see that RH Charles was the first to notice these additional parallels back in 1897. So I'm always learning new things. That's what I love about this stuff.
-
jwfacts
JonahPine may have fled, but I enjoyed the material Leo. One point you did not mention here, but have elsewhere is regarding Tartarus. I was surprised recently whilst watching Wrath of the Titans that Tartarus is a Greek concept and that the Bible took that idea from there. I am amazed at the development of the condition of the dead through the Bible, as you highlighted above.
-
talesin
I admire your scholarship, Leolaia. And if the OP was started by a troll, so be it. Many seekers will read your comments.
Though I'm not interested in the subject matter personally, and I never comment, I feel we are blessed to have you here.
For many, the way to enlightenment is through studying the roots of the doctrine, and I know your work has helped a lot of folks.
tal
-
Leolaia
Yeah, that Tartarus reference is an interesting one. That allusion in 2 Peter 2:4 represents a reworking of the very Enochic allusion in Jude 6 (as delineated above); the priority of Jude over 2 Peter is especially apparent in how the Petrine author blurred or omitted altogether the allusions to 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. The reference to "Tartartus" (actually it is a verb here, tartaroun"cast into Tartarus") however is quite in keeping with 1 Enoch, where "Tartarus" appears in 1 Enoch 20:2 although it appears in the LXX as well (Job 40:20, 41:24 LXX, Proberbs 30:16 LXX). The verbal form doesn't occur in the LXX or the Greek version of 1 Enoch but is solely restricted to pagan references to the Tartarus myth. And it is also very interesting that there is a probable allusion to the Tartarus myth in the original version of the text in Jude 6. There the author says that the imprisoned angels are kept "under nether blackness" (hupo zophon). The Enochic texts use skotos "darkness" to refer to the gloom of the angelic prison, although zophos does occur elsewhere in 1 Enoch, specifically in ch. 17, where it refers to the "place of black darkness" (zophódé topon) at the extremities of the world, near where the gloom of "the great darkness" (tou megalou skotous) is found (v. 2, 6). But we find both "under nether blackness" (hupo zophon) and "chains" (desmois), the two expressions found in Jude 6, used together in Hesiod in his classical telling of the Tartarus myth:
"[They] overshadowed the Titans with their missiles, and buried them beneath the wide-pathed earth, and bound them in bitter chains (desmoisin) when they had conquered them by their strength for all their great spirit, as far beneath the earth to Tartarus.... There by the counsel of Zeus who drives the clouds, the Titan gods (theoi Titénes) are hidden under black darkness (hupo zophó), in a dank place where the ends of the huge earth meet" (Hesiod, Theogonia 715-730).
The Society ignores all this and metaphorically refers to a "spritual state of debasement" of the fallen angels. The reason for this interpretation is their identification of the demons with the fallen angels and not the souls of the drowned Nephilim, as in Enochic and subsequent literature (including the NT). If the fallen angels were bound and imprisoned in an abyss (just as the Devil is supposed to be at the end times, according to Revelation), then they wouldn't be around possessing and bothering people. Rather the ancient Jewish-Christian belief was that the demons look for fleshly bodies to dwell in because they lost their original bodies in the Flood when the Nephilim drowned (which is why the legion of demons proceed to drown themselves when they possess a herd of swine in Mark 9).
-
sabastious
The condition of the dead has always been the same, but our understanding of it kept flip flopping because of power struggles. I think the best culture to study in regards to this topic is the Native Americans. They lived in isolation for so long with little to no influence from the outside world. By the end of their culture they had a very in depth understanding of what happens after you die.
The way I look at it is this:
There are good people and there are bad people. When a good person dies, their spirit is able to help the good people that still live in the ways that spirits can. If a bad person dies their deeds are judged and based upon the result of that judgement they are either sentenced to eternal non existence, or are recycled back into the natural world for "another go." I think the Native American's and the Ancient Chinese/East Indian's had it right. I believe Solomon's condition of the dead was referring to the actual matter that diseased. He is saying that you never go back into a body that dies, it dies forever. It's cycle is "complete" and therefore is conscious of nothing at all. However the soul that was connected to it continues on at the pleasure of the One True God who created it.
-Sab
-
Leolaia
Here is another point I'd like to make. In that thread referred to in the OP, the person who makes much of the fact that Jude refers to the Assumption of Moses somehow argues that this book construes Moses as bodily resurrected to life in heaven and asserts that this is contrary to the views of those who promote the idea of the immortality of the soul. I find this to be a real stretch. There is no evidence that the book relates a resurrection of Moses per se, nor does the evidence necessarily point in that direction. The term analèpsis "assumption, ascension" or its verbal form analambanein "to be taken up", do not necessarily imply the ascension of a body. It is used for the bodily ascension of Jesus after his resurrection in Acts 1:2, 11, Mark 16:19, 1 Timothy 3:16, and that of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:9-11 LXX, Sirach 48:9, and 1 Maccabees 2:58. But it is also used in the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra to refer to the ascension of Ezra to heaven in a vision (1:7). In the Greek version of the Ascension of Isaiah, it refers to Isaiah's mind being taken up into heaven while his body remained on the earth: "He fell into a trance and his mind was taken from this world (èrthè ho dialogismos autou apo tou kosmou toutou) ... and he was not dead but taken up (analèphthè)" (Greek Ascension of Isaiah 2:1-2). Paul also used another word harpazein "to take forcibly" to refer to a visionary ascension to heaven that could have equally been bodily or spiritual (2 Corinthians 12:2). And in the Gospel of Peter, it is used to refer to Jesus' spirit being taken up from the cross at the moment of death (in advance of his resurrection). The expression was commonly used to refer to what happens at the moment of death, such as in the following: "May his old age be in lonely childlessness until he is taken up (analèmpsin)" (Psalms of Solomon 4:18). Hermas similarly used it to refer to the death of his slave owner Rhoda whom he had a crush on: "As I was praying heaven opened and I saw that woman upon whom I had set my heart greeting me from heaven with: 'Hello Hermas!' Looking up at her I said, 'Lady, what are you doing up there?' She answered: 'I was taken up (anelèmphthen) in order to reproach you for your sins before the Lord' " (Pastor 1.5).
But the two most relevant texts are those paralleling the narrative in the Assumption of Moses. In the Testament of Abraham, the archangel Michael visits Abraham in order to prepare him for his death and Michael tells him: "You will be taken up into the heavens (analambanesai eis tous ouranous), while your body remains on the earth (sòma sou menei epi tès gès) until seven thousand ages are fulfilled. For then all flesh will be raised (egerthèsetai pasa sarx)" (7:15-16; recension B). This clearly construes Abraham's soul being raised to heaven while his body is buried on the earth, and Abraham waits in heaven until the resurrection of all flesh many ages later. Abraham however wishes that he be raised bodily: "I beseech you, lord, if I am to leave my body (exerkhòmai ek tou sòmatos mou), I want to be taken up bodily (sòmatikòs èthelon analèphthènai)" (v. 18). These two texts show that "assumption" (analèpsis) could either be bodily or "out of the body". And so prior to Abraham's death, the archangel Michael "took him up in the body" (anelaben en sòmati) to show him the wonders of the heavens and earth (8:1-2). But when Abraham died, it was only his soul that was taken up into heaven: "God turned and drew out the soul of Abraham (exeteinen tèn psukhèn tou Abraam) as in a dream and the chief commander Michael took it into the heavens (èren autèn eis tous ouranous)" (14:7). As recension A has it:
Testament of Abraham 20:10-14; recension A: "And immediately Michael the archangel stood beside him with multitudes of angels, and they bore his precious soul (tèn timian autou psukhèn) in their hands in divinely woven linen. And they tended the body of the righteous Abraham (to sòma tou dikaiou Abraam) with divine ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death. And they buried him in the promised land at the oak of Mamre, while the angels escorted his precious soul (tèn te timian autou psukhèn òpsikeuon) and ascended into heaven (anerkhonto eis ton ouranon) singing the thrice-holy hymn to God, the master of all, and they set it down for the worship of the God and Father and ... the undefiled voice of the God and Father came speaking thus: 'Take, then, my friend Abraham into Paradise, where there are the tents of my righteous ones, and where the mansions of my holy ones Isaac and Jacob are in his bosom (cf. the "Bosom of Abraham" in Luke 16), where there is no toil, no grief, no moaning, but peace and exultation and endless life".
The other relevant text is the Life of Adam and Eve (Greek recension). After Adam dies, Michael the archangel goes to Eve and tells her: "Behold, Adam your husband has gone out of his body (exèlthen ek tou sòmatos autou). Rise and see his spirit bourne up (pneuma autou anapheromenon) to meet his maker" (32:4). Then after Adam's soul was cleansed, we read:
Greek Life of Adam and Eve 37:4-6, 40:6-7: "He handed him over to the archangel Michael, saying to him, 'Take him up into Paradise (aron auton eis ton paradeison), to the third heaven (tritou ouranou), and leave him there until that great and fearful day which I am about to establish for the world.' And the archangel Michael took Adam and brought him away (apègen) and left him, just as God told him at the pardoning of Adam...Then the angels took up the body [of Abel] and set it on the rock, until the time his father died, and both were buried according to the command of God in the regions of Paradise in the place from which God had found the dust. And so God sent seven angels into Paradise and they brought many fragrances and set them in the earth, and so they took the two bodies and buried them in the place which they dug and built".
So in light of these two close parallels (notice the similar role and function of Michael the archangel), it seems quite plausible that the Assumption of Moses involved the ascension of Moses' soul to heaven while his body was buried on earth, rather than Moses being raised bodily to heaven. This is the scenario presented by the Platonist Philo of Alexandria, who mentions that Moses' burial by angels occurred as the same time his soul was "taken up" (analambanomenos) into heaven (De Vita Mosis 2.291). So in the extant text of the book, we find a proleptic reference to Moses' assumption: "For from my death, my being taken away, until His advent, there will be 250 times that will happen" (10:12). So here we see that Moses dies and does not rise into heaven bodily like Elijah. He is also to be buried (11:5-8). The story of the assumption from the book was summarized by Clement of Alexandria who wrote: "Joshua, the son of Nun, saw a double Moses being taken away (analambanomenon), one who went with the angels, and the other who was deigned worthy to be buried in the ravines" (Stromateis 6.132.2). His pupil Origen also wrote: "In a certain small book, which is to be sure absent from the canon, an image of this mystery is described. It is said that two Moseses were visible: one alive in the spirit, and the other dead in the body" (In Jesu Nave 2.1). This statement shows that the Assumption of Moses probably did depict Moses' soul being taken up into heaven while his body was buried on earth.
-
Alucard
As ever, Leolaia's post on 'soul sleep' is fascinating and well-researched (I skulk in the shadows and read the forum sometimes), but I feel that certain ideas and facts need more development. So here is my small contribution, in the interest of balance.
Firstly, Leolaia is right to say that the WTS gives quite a narrow account of death in the OT, largely ignoring or masking over the varied accounts of death and the afterlife in the OT itself. Yet we must be careful over details, for, as we know, 'the devil is in the details'! "Mortalism" is not the concept that "the soul continues to exist after death" [Leolaia] - that is 'immortalism' or 'substance dualism', the traditional Christian view of post-mortem existence. 'Mortalism' (which has been around in its modern form at least since Tyndale) is akin to 'physicalism', 'monism' or so-called 'thnetopsychism' i.e. you are your body, and when it does, you die - period. As far back as Aubrey Johnson ( The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1964) commentators have been comfortable with understanding OT death as "virtual extinction" (Johnson, 93). Steinhart has recently echoed this view:
"The Bible describes death literally as the extinction of the person (Job 14; Ecc 3:19-20, 9:10). Persons are made of dust and shall return to dust (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19, Gen 18:27)." (Eric Steinhart, 'The revision theory of resurrection', Religious Studies, 44, 2008, 80)
In the last few decades, many critics and scholars have re-examined the traditional dualistic paradigm that has dominated western Christianity, only to find it wanting. See Joel Green [Body, Soul and Human Life 2008], Bruce Reichenbach [Is Man The Phoenix? 1982], Edward Fudge [The Fire that Consumes 2 nd ed. 2011], David Powys [Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question 1998], Karel Hanhart [The Intermediate State in the NT 1966], Tom Wright [Surprised by Hope 2007], among others such as Alan Richardson who outspokenly wrote: "In the biblical view a man dies and literally ceases to exist" (A Dictionary of Christian Theology, 1969). Representative of this newer generation of interpreters is Richard Middleton who questions the received notion of 'heavenly life after death' in the classical Christian sense:
"Since the mid-seventies, I have been asking my students (in adult Sunday School classes, in campus ministry groups, in undergraduate courses) to find even one passage in the Bible that actually says that Christians will live in heaven forever (or that heaven is the eternal destiny of the righteous). After a lot of searching, they admit - incredulously - that they can't find any." (J. Richard Middleton, 'A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Case for a Holistic Reading of the Biblical Story of Redemption', Journal for Christian Theological Research, 11, 2006, 86)
Other writers also promote this line in essays that may only reach a limited audience, such as the little-known work of Jesuit Stanley Marrow:
"The 'I' does not have a body, a soul or a spirit, but rather it is a body, a soul and a spirit. We must, therefore, keep in mind that, in the NT, when the 'I' dies, then all of me dies: my body, my soul and my spirit. In death none of me and nothing of me survives ...The 'I', both as subject and object of relationships, ceases to be." (Stanley Marrow, 'ATHANASIA/ANASTASIS: The Road Not Taken', New Testament Studies, 45, 1999, 573, 575)
Leolaia suggests that "Paul...also expected to go to heaven immediately after death", citing the well-known passages of 2 Cor 5 and Phil 1:23. Yet this is undermined by scholarship that proposes the complete opposite. Jerry Sumney looks at all the significant Pauline texts and states:
"Paul thinks most people (including believers) cease to exist at death... Paul does not seem to envision any sort of conscious or even unconscious intermediate state for most people who have died. They simply await the parousia to receive life." (Jerry Sumney, 'Post-Mortem Existence and Resurrection of the Body in Paul', Horizons in Biblical Theology, 31, 2009, 12)
Much can be said on Phil 1:23. but signficantly a recent French-language study argues that the Greek syn Christo (with Christ) in no sense implies being 'in the literal presence of Christ' after death, but rather that Paul's imminent demise would link him inextricably with Christ's death and destiny, in the sequence: martyr's death, resurrection, then glorification (see Enrique Treiyer, 'S'en aller et être avec Christ: Philippiens 1:23', Andrews University Seminary Studies, 34, 1996, 47-64). Other writers have expressed similar interpretations, such as D. Palmer ('To Die is Gain' Novum Testamentum, 17, 1975) and C. De Vogel ('Reflexions on Ph. 1:23-24', Novum Testamentum, 19, 1977), as well as Tony Wright who claims:
"However, by itself, Philippians 1:23 does not support any one view of the intermediate state, for it speaks only of Paul's desire to be 'with Christ'. The 'when and where' of this being with Christ is not stated." (Tony Wright, 'Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology - Part 2', Churchman 122, 2008, 116).
Not to be forgotten is the consistent Pauline view that Christians await the parousia and future resurrection, not an early 'heavenly' encounter following death. Any perceived 'immediacy' in Phil 1:23 should hence be understood as the experienced immediacy of the resurrection-event from the viewpoint of the deceased believer: the being 'with Christ' would thus be the next waking moment for that believer who would have experienced no long intervening passage of time. Murray Harris concedes that this lack of temporal delay could fit the implied immediacy of Phil 1:23 (From Grace to Glory: Resurrection in the NT, 1990, 209), as does F. F.Bruce ("in the consciousness of the departed believer there is no interval between dissolution and investiture" (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free 1977, 312).
While we are talking about Paul, Richard Hays sounds a note of caution:
"Many devout Christians expect their souls to 'go to heaven' when they die without realizing how little the Bible says about any such ideas... Notice that Paul does not say to the grieving Thessalonians, 'Your loved ones are already in heaven with Jesus.' Instead, he holds out the promise of the resurrection of the body." (Richard Hays, 'The Resurrection of the Body' in Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed, ed. van Harn, 2004, 262, 265)
Hays goes on to criticize traditional body/soul duality with the suggestion that "this kind of individualistic, dualistic piety is closer to ancient Gnosticism than to historic orthodox Christianity" (ibid. 266).
Brian Edgar equally finds fault with a dualist exegesis of scriptural data:
"On the basis of an eschatology which involves the intermediate state, death is not seen as the radical event which it is presented as in scripture. Instead it becomes a transition from one form of existence to the next. Death is seen simply as the separation of body and soul involving the dissolution or death of the body, but not of the soul which moves to a new phase of existence. No soul ever actually dies, and as the soul is the real person, therefore at death no person ever actually dies." (Brian Edgar, 'Biblical Anthropology and the Intermediate State: Part 1', Evangelical Quarterly, 74, 2002, 118)
Additionally, writers such as Trenton Merricks confirm that such dualism has been a misleading diversion in Christian doctrine:
"The dualist does not believe that dead people are raised to life; rather, she believes that dead bodies are raised to be reunited with already living people (who are, in the intermediate state at least, souls)... It is not clear that the dualist can agree that death is bad. When the Christian dies, according to the dualist, he or she goes immediately to a much better place." (Trenton Merricks, 'The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting' in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Harris, 1999, 283, 284)
Eric Steinhart astutely points out that "A theory that says your soul is disembodied at death and then reembodied later is a reincarnation theory rather than a resurrection theory" (Steinhart, 'Science and the General Resurrection' online essay at www.ericsteinhart.com). This is a conundrum that dualists tend to pass over lightly, but it is a significant issue , as Howsepian acknowledges:
"The Cartesian or Christian Platonist may reply that to die is to shed one's body, and to be resurrected is to be reembodied. But surely 'to shed one's body' does not constitute the death of the person on this view. The person lives on in an uninterrupted fashion, before, during and after he or she dies. What sort of death is that? It seems like nothing deserving of the title 'death' at all. What dies in Cartesianism is not the person, but the person's body. So what is resurrected is not the person, but the person's body. Is this the Christian hope? Do we look forward to the resurrection of dead bodies or to the bodily resurrection of the dead?" ( A.A. Howsepian, 'Sowing the Seeds of Christian Anthropology: Contributions from Scripture, Philosophy and Neuroscience', Ex Auditu, 13, 1997, 50)
Leolaia mentions various other scripture texts that seem to lend support to putative post-mortem existence, such as 1 Samuel 28 (the witch of Endor), Luke 16 (the rich man and Lazarus) and Rev 6 (souls under the heavenly altar). I will deal briefly with these in turn:
In 1 Sam 28, only the medium sees Samuel, Saul does not. In fact, we do not even know what the medium sees, as she only mentions an old man and a cloak or robe - apparel that was certainly not unique to Samuel! Uncharacteristically, this alleged Samuel uses a harsh and intimidating tone against Saul, whereas the biblical Samuel was respectful towards and arguably fond of Saul (1 Sam 15:53). The language used in the verses says that the medium 'brought up' Samuel, as if from Sheol, yet dualists would have to concede that no travel or interaction is possible between Sheol (or Hades) and our world, according to Luke 16:26. Leolaia mentions the verse at 1 Chronicles 10:13, but this actually confirms that Saul did not seek God's counsel but that of a 'ghost' (NEB) or 'spirit of the dead' (TEV). As she points out in her post, the word in 1 Sam 28 is ob which can mean 'ghost' or 'sentient being' according to OT expert Philip Johnston (Shades of Sheol: Death and the Afterlife in the OT, 2002, 151). But this is still not the same as positing a human living on in the afterlife; in fact it more plausibly suggests a spirit being like a demon. It is not just the WTS that takes this view, as it is an interpretation going back to Luther, Calvin and even Augustine.
Johnston comments on the fact that the medium calls the spirit elohim:"For the medium at least, elohim refers to the spirit of a dead human being i.e. the dead could be divinized." (Johnston, ibid 145) But while this may have been the pagan medium's understanding, it is far from that of the OT Bible. Keil and Delitzsch say of this verse that elohim signifies "a celestial (super-terrestrial) heavenly, or spiritual being" (Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, 1866, 263). Leolaia refers to Num 25:2 in the same vein, but the cluster of meaning surrounding elohim is more suggestive of supernatural or preternatural beings such as wicked spirits or demons than of deceased humans, who have no real afterlife in the OT worth being called 'life', even taking into account any poetic or suggestive language around the rephaim. As Stephen Perks observes:
"The Bible does not say that the shade or spirit or soul of Samuel appeared to Saul. It may be that Saul expected such a thing. Doubtless the witch did not." (Stephen Perks, 'The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting', Christianity and Society, 9, no. 2, April 1999, 2).
On this train of thought, Tony Wright comments:
"Thus even to say that 'the dead live on', is an overstatement of the quality and nature of their existence. What is on view is not the life after death but rather the death after life...The dead are 'shades', who lack a body, are inactive and silent, and as such their minimalistic existence is best likened to a coma. All of the dead lead this comatose existence in the dark silence of the underworld." (Wright, ibid.14, 19)
On Luke 16, Leolaia states that "Luke specifically criticizes in a parable the Sadducee belief", whereas David Powys argues convincingly that the parable is more likely aimed at the Pharisees, in order "to shatter the Pharisees' misplaced expectation of reward-based salvation" (Powys ibid 219). If this is the case, the whole parable is a polemic aimed at correcting Pharisaic falsehood, not about universal post-mortem destiny, just as Powys concludes: "The story has no bearing on the question of the fate of the unrighteous" (ibid 227). Tony Wright concurs:
"In this parable, Jesus no more provides information about the intermediate state than, in other parables, does he provide instruction on correct agricultural practices (Luke 15;4-6) or investing tips (Luke 16:1-13)." (Wright, ibid 114)
Revelation 6 does indeed speak of "souls of those who had been slain", implying post-mortem existence of Christians in heaven; yet here too there is more room for doubt than is usually allowed. Even doyen of dualism John Cooper admits that this text is to be treated with some suspicion:
"This is a difficult text and cannot bear much weight in the monism-dualism debate. Perhaps if we are reluctant to view Armageddon literalistically as a military conflict in the Middle East, we ought to be equally cautious about the souls under the altar." (John Cooper, Body, Soul and Life Everlasting 1989, 128).
To which Perks adds the key link between 'soul' and 'lifeblood' from Gen 4:10, Lev 17:11 and Deut 12:23:
"It seems, therefore, that the word 'souls' (psychas) in Rev 6:9 refers to the shed blood of the martyrs...The imagery of Rev 6:9 , therefore, i.e. the image of the souls of the martyrs under the altar in heaven crying out to God for justice, is the same kind of metaphor that is used in Gen 4:10 with reference to the murder of Abel, although the imagery is more fanciful, occurring as it does in a book that makes extensive use of a highly apocalyptic form of language." (Stephen Perks, 'Is There an Afterlife? The Intermediate State Reconsidered', Christianity and Society, 9 no. 3, July 1999, 4, 5)
Finally, it is instructive to read why and how the ideas of dualism and the deathless soul took such a hold on Christian thought and doctrine. Alan Segal nails down the key background event that made this possible - the delay of the parousia:
"As Christianity came to terms with the continued existence of the world, it incorporated two conceptions that were quite foreign to its original formulation - the immortality of the soul and an interim state in which the soul exists until the Savior arrives to judge the world...With no quickly arriving apocalypse, there would be no reason to convert to Christianity except to avoid more and more horrendous punishments for sinning. Hell was a convenient stick with which to whip the sinner and a great cautionary tale to encourage the faithful... But once the soul was immortal and all souls survived forever, then punishment had to be eternal as well, otherwise sinners would appear to get away with their dastardly deeds." (Alan Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West, 2004, 486, 489)
He concludes that as the expected parousia delayed ever further, "the intermediate state in heaven became more and more important" (ibid 490).
There really is more room for ambiguity in most of the traditional proof-texts for dualism and the immortal soul than is commonly granted. I hope to have shown that it is not just a black-and-white issue (which Bible topic truly is?) but that there are powerful arguments for monism that need to be weighed against the claimed truths of dualism. In answer to Job's question "If a man dies, can he live again?" (Job 14:14), we can take comfort in Paul's definitive answer about his faith in "the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were." (Rom 4:17 NIV)
-
Leolaia
Hi Alucard....Welcome to the forum, are you from the thread linked in the OP? I am grateful for your very detailed and well-referenced response, and I hope to give some further comments in the near future (I am a bit busy at the moment). You are quite right that there is a lot of room for disagreement on this subject and that evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways, which is why discussion and debate is very important.