Understanding of Life after Death Essay Example for Free

Understanding of life after ending EssayWith root to the topics you incur investigated, examine and comment on the claim that the teachings of the sassy testament do non attach anything of value to our value of our understanding of Life after Death. (50 marks)The claim that the teachings of the New Testament do non add anything of value to our value of our understanding of life after death is a very(prenominal) good-looking claim to make. With confer wi soce to the topics I put one over investigated, 1Cor 15, St. capital of Minnesota, Soma, The Soul, Dualism, Monism and the Empty Tomb, I give examine and comment on that claim. This claim is controversial because it has many objections from other scholars and many rescuerians.In 1 Corinthians 15 there argon sestet key surgical incisions. The first base of which is Christs Resurrection. Here capital of Minnesota is keen to fall apart the Corinthians that he isnt the teacher on life after death and that he is simpl y pas take advantageg on rescuer message, because as we know, Jesus was the teacher and his apostles, which later included Paul after Damascus, were his messengers.The second section is the denial of the resurrection. Paul says that rough people grapple that there will be no resurrection of the every last(predicate) of a sudden and both(prenominal) scholars argue that this is not a theological argument, except Paul argues that the individual is immortal and not the ashes. Paul illustrates the theological implications of the objections from Corinth argon that if dead men dont establish, so Christ did not rise and Christian faith is expel. Paul continues to say that if Christ was not maked, thence our preaching is useless. intelligibly Jesus resurrection must have happened as the tradition has survived.The ordinal section is all almost the consequences of Christs resurrection. Barrett writes that the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of h is people. St Paul makes a direct connecter between Adam and Christ, Adams actions had far reaching consequences such as original sin and Christs Resurrection has too such consequence such as universal salvation. Paul goes on about cardinal several(predicate) orders, Christ and his believers. Morris argues that the classic articulate for destroyed does not imply fighting, alone that all rule, other than Christ, we will be rendered null and void.Section four is all about the Arguments from Christian Experience. V29 brings about an abrupt change in focus, and St Paul moves from Christ to Christian. Section five goes on about a embodied resurrection. St Pauls uses the miracle of the harvest and says that ar bodies are sown up in corruption, dishonour and weakness, merely if it will be raised in incorruption, glory and power. Pauls teaching of a canonised bole is a marked difference from Jewish thought, as they expected an identical automobile trunk.Section six and the last section is about the victory over death. This is where Paul made clear that those who rise will be different and not flesh and blood. Paul stresses the continuity present and future state with four times use of the word this. He emphasises that this decay up to(p) and this mortal will be clothed with imperishablity and immortality. In my opinion, 1Cor 15 doesnt help the claim that the teachings of the New Testament do not add anything to our understanding of Life after Death because it tells us about how we can overturn death and destroy it.John Drane argues that Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus, together with Jesus Passion, Death and Resurrection, led him to believe that he was truly bread and hardlyter in the presence of divinity fudge. From a close study of the New Testament, it can be argued that St Paul changed his precept about resurrection as time progressed. St Paul spoke about coming to the Christians.The Parousia is the final victory over evil, when Jesus ri ses again. Initially, St Paul held a strong apocalyptic mint which was that all Christians will live until the Parousia, yet this was challenged by the Thessalonian Christians, as many of them began to die. St Paul then said that those who have died will be raised to refreshful life at the Parousia. He then added that those who were still living at the end of time of the Parousia would be transformed at the said(prenominal) instant. St Paul then stated that this transformation would not be sudden, besides a gradual change, beginning with conversion and terminal with death, which would lead directly into a new existence in a odorual body without the collect for the Parousia to arrive first.Drane argues that the change in St Pauls thinking represents a change from primitive Jewish view to a more than sophisticated position that owed a lot to the influence of Greek philosophy. The Greek Tradition is that the Hellenistic thinking originated from Plato who said that the instinc t is immaterial and does not occupy space. It hence does not disintegrate. It is immortal. Whereas the Jewish view is that they believed that, in some way, the soul begins to perish at death, and the psycho- visible unity that was the psyche is re-created elsewhere.The question has been asked as to whether Paul ever believed in spiritual resurrection? Whether Paul did believe in a spiritual resurrection, then that would prove to help our understanding on Life after Death. almost scholars disagree with the notion that St Paul believed in a purely spiritual resurrection, as this is a very primitive Christian belief that has since been replaced with belief in a natural resurrection. However Carrier and Friedman manage that there are a number of arguments to support this view. First, that St Paul experienced a vision on the road to Damascus, during which he was converted. Therefore, it is conceivable to suggest that the appearances were understood by Paul to also be visions, and n ot literally physical occurrences, as portrayed in the Gospel of Luke and John.For Paul used the equal Greek word to describe the appearance in both instances. Secondly, that in 1Cor 15, Paul writes of perishable and imputrescible bodies he also makes a distinction between things of earth and things of heaven. Because he doesnt disclaim the popular belief that things of heaven are ethereal, it can be argued that the people at Corinth already accepted it. Therefore, it is prima facie that it is reasonable to suggest that St Paul was implying that the imperishable body was ethereal, and not physical. Furthermore, St Paul literally makes this distinction calling the perishable body psychikos which means a natural body and the imperishable body pneumatikos which is a spiritual body, and says that they both co-exist in one body.He says that the body we know, the body of flesh, is own only this other, second body, the body of the spirit, rises to new life. Finally, St Paul says, that fl esh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God because they are part of the perishable body, whereas it is an imperishable body that rises to new life. Yet these arguments have been outright rejected by the majority of scholars, who favour the head that St Paul did actually believe in a bodily resurrection. So why does it seem so convincing that St Paul believed in a bodily resurrection? Scholarly debate has identified that firstly, Pauls self-identified Jewish heritage precludes such a conclusion. Secondly, that the language Paul uses to describe the resurrection, most notably sort, emphasises the physical nature of the resurrected psyche. And thirdly and finally, Pauls belief that Christians immediately went to be with Jesus upon their death, only if still awaited a resurrection demonstrates that the resurrection being discussed was a physical one.I believe that there is no doubt that there is a strong Jewish background to Christianity. Carrier and Friedman ignore this backg round, arguing that because Christianity changed some Jewish beliefs, there is no part of Judaism that is informative to Christianity. The little regard that Carrier and Friedman exhibit for Pauls Jewish background is in direct contravention of the importance Paul clearly places on it. Carrier again attempts to confuse the issue by arguing that, even if Paul was a Jew, only the Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection. The Sadducees and Essenes did not. Moreover, Young argues that Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. By aligning himself with a Pharisaic background, Paul provides us with an important insight into the meaning he attaches the term resurrection he believed in a physical resurrection of the body.Soma emphasises the physical. In his writing, St Paul uses the Greek word soma to refer to the body. Importantly, he does not use it solely for referring to resurrection strengthening the argu ment that when it is used to refer to resurrection, it will die but it will also be resurrected. Soma is also mentioned in the NT but not referring to resurrection. In 1Cor 153, Paul says that his soma is not present with the Corinthians, but his spirit is emphasising the physical nature of the soma. Barrett argues that Pauls use of the word spirit here colloquial sort of than theological. In Rom 419, soma is used to describe how the bodies of Abraham and Sarah were too old to be conceptive its physical nature, again, stressed. Accordingly, the very fact that Paul uses the term soma to explain the resurrection demonstrates that he is referring to a physical event that involves the body of the believer.Additionally, Paul uses the analogy of the seed, stressing the continuity of the earthly body with the resurrected glorious body. In 1Cor 1550-54 Sanders comments that immortality is put on and replaces mortality. Paul was not thinking of an interior soul which escapes its mortal she ll and floats free, nor the new life being take a breath into the same body, but again of transformation, achieved by covering mortality with immortality, which it swallows emphasising the physical. Wright and Barrett argue similar points. My own personal opinion is that Paul believed more in a spiritual resurrection but he didnt rule out a physical resurrection. In light of the statement I think that this is an influential part of our understanding of Life after death because it helps us understand which resurrection was more likely.The term soul refers to ourselves, who earn rewards and consequences by coming to know, or failing to come to know, God by faith. We will come to earn blissful life in heaven, or eternal loss of heaven. Jesus parables clearly teach us that it is the same self judgement which faces judgement after death as the self who lived on earth in the body. There are three different theories about the soul. The first scheme being the Theory of Origen. The soul e xisted in the heavenly realms before descending into this world, and that its present bondage in a material body is the result of a primeval fall from grace. This was never wide accepted, and rejected by the Church at the Council of Constantinople in 540 AD.The second argument is that of Traducianism. The theory that the soul-substance which God breathed into Adam has been passed down through generation after generation of his descendants by continual division. To some extent, this draws parallel with modern genetic science everything comes from a gene pool. This was gradually abandoned by the Church. The third and final argument is that of Creationism. Each new soul is a new divine creation which God attaches to the growing foetus at some point between conception and birth.This was enshrined by the First Vatican Council, who declared that God creates a new soul and infuses it to ach man. However, Creationist thought is incompatible with the findings of modern science as it suggest s that there are characteristics of the self that are derived neither from genetic inheritance nor from interaction with the environment Dawkins would sarcasm this theory, saying it was none-sense. Personally i believe that the soul is resurrected and moves on in life and that our bodies will rise up at the Parousia. Therefore it is an important aspect to our understanding of life after death.Monism is the theological view that all is one and this will help us understand Life after Death benignant beings are made up of one substance and that what it is to be military personnel can be specify in material terms because the soul cannot be separated from the body. Monism comes in a number of different forms some argue that the soul and body are one, whilst others reject the concept of soul altogether and that the body is one substance on its own.People were beginning to speak of the soul as the ghost at heart the machine the body. Ryle argued that this was a category mistake as the language was being used incorrectly. By describing the soul in this way, the soul is being proposed as something extra inside the body, which can physically identified at bottom a person. Ryle argues that to talk of the soul is to talk about the way a person acts and integrates with others in federation it, consequently, is not separate and distinct.Dawkins perspective of Monism is that the view that we can only know what we are able to through empirical observation verify. The soul does not exist separately from the body as it cannot be verified. This is known as Materialism. relate to Dawkins is that he believed that humans are bytes of digital information there is no soul as we are simply the sum of our genes. The soul cannot survive death, there is only the survival of DNA. Dawkins can be set forth as a Harsh Materialist because he does not believe in life after death.He believes it is nonsense to talk of a life after death as one body is dead, it ceases to function. Dawkin s claims that human brain has now fully evolved because we are now at a stage where we are able to predict the result of our actions, enabling us to choose how to behave. Therefore, humans continue to evolve because of the need to groom our memes (the way in which we mimic behaviour from other humans), not because of the genetic need to display our consciousness as a human race. I fell that this is important to our understanding of Life after Death because it allows us to see and understand the different attitudes to life after death.Soft Materialists still support monism but, conflicting Harsh Materialists, they do believe in a life after death. The main supporter of cracked materialism is John Hick, who proposes a replica theory. The strengths to this theory are, one, if you accept Gods omnipotent existence, then procreation Theory is perfectly plausible. Second, Replica Theory does not posit a soul, and so does not have to justify its existence. Thirdly, the Replica Theory a nswers the conflicting claims argument because, according to Hick, everyone goes to heaven, regardless of their religion/beliefs. Fourth, the theory does not depend upon dualism and so is acceptable to more people. Finally, in terms of logic, Replica Theory is possible.The criticisms of the Replica Theory are, one, Vardy challenges Hick by questioning whether the replicated being would be the same person. Is a replica the same as the original? Secondly, Vardy further argues that there is a break in continuity for a person to stop existing in one place and be replicated in another there has to be a break in continuity of existence. So much so that the replicated person cannot be the same person. Thirdly, Williams simply argues that an endless life of replications would be increasingly boring and result in a nonsense(prenominal) life (an argument against Christian beliefs). Finally, logical possibility does not equate to factual possibility.Dualism however, is the idea that the poin t and body are two separate substances. It is possible to survive death, as the soul disembodies. Human beings live of both physical minds and that the mind is the essence of a person. This belief supports the immortality of the soul.Plato was a dualist who believed that the soul and body are two separate substances that interact with each other. Plato argued that the real identity of the person lies with the soul. He argued that the body and the mind are often in opposition he saw the body as a hurting and a bind. It is not the real person. Plato wrote We may say I have a body but not I am a body.Plato believed that the real person is separate and distinct from the body it inhabits. The soul existed prior to being in the present body and, on death, will leave the body. The soul is on a higher level of reality than the body, being immortal with understanding of the realm of ideas. The body is concerned with the senses, the soul with reason. The soul is not always perfect because t he body corrupts it and drags it down. Humans have the projection of taking care of the soul, but this is easily corrupted. This helps our understanding of life after death because it gives us two sides of the argument for a spiritual or bodily resurrection and why they are both accepted.There is a wealth of scholarly debate on the historicity and significance of the empty grave. The empty tomb will tell us if Jesus resurrection was bodily or spiritual, because he rose in body but then the robes were left perfect, as if to say that he floated up out of them, making it a spiritual resurrection.Arguments against the empty tomb detail are the fact that, St Paul gives the official Christian list of resurrection appearances, without making a single reference to the empty tomb. Also, sceptics claim that the body of Jesus was simply stolen (i.e. not resurrected) or undercover by the disciples, making any post-resurrection appearances documented in NT nothing more than spiritual visions. The Swoon surmise proposes that Jesus never actually died on the cross, but entered into a coma, from which he awoke whilst in the tomb, and so therefore never resurrected. Some go as far as saying that Joseph of Arimathea offering a tomb for the body of Jesus is an invention of early Christians who were desperate to make a bodily resurrection seem possible. Dawkins would acquiesce this. If these arguments were to be accepted, then it would suggest that there was no spiritual resurrection, it was purely bodily, if there even was a resurrection.Arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb, i can be said, of the stolen body theory Hick says that it would have been impossible for the disciples to do at Pentecost, less than 2 months after Jesus crucifixion to have publicly proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem (within a mile or so of the tomb), if his body was still there and able to be produced. Brown argues that there was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Therefore, because Joseph of Arimathea was a part of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, it is highly unlikely that he was a Christian invention (there is no reason why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrinist who does what is right by Jesus).The empty tomb is reported by many free-lance early sources (incl. Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, and Paul). Jewish historian Josephus reports that Jewish women were not even allowed to serve as witnesses in court of law making it even more remarkable that it was women who discovered the empty tomb (surely this detail would have been omitted or changed if it were not true?). My own personal opinion is that there was a resurrection, but going on the arguments given to us, I think that it was a bodily resurrection and that I would fall under the bracket of a monist.I believe that the New Testament teachings help us in our understanding of Life after Deat h because it teaches us about the body and soul, but I believe that it was a bodily resurrection because i believe the that the body and soul must have been working together as one to raise Jesus from the dead, because if it was one or the other then Jesus would have come back as a different person. Others would disagree with me because they feel that the bible is made up and that the historicity aspect is just co-occurrence and that it was a recent write-up of events of landmarks still existing today.This view fails because Johanine eschatology proves otherwise. The pool with five porticos still exists today, and that wouldnt have been included in Johns gospel if it didnt exist in Johns time. The eschatological aspect of it is that Jesus second coming will be at the Parousia when, we rise, bodily and spiritually to overcome death and evil.