[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12724.msg149537#msg149537 date=1324941823] Why should we not say that a soul which used to be associated with a body is now with Christ?
I tend to agree.
If we ARE conscious immediately after death and we are NOT in our physical bodies and have not yet been resurrected, then why not call it a soul/spirit.
The fact that Plato used the term soul to mean things that are erroneous to the Christian concept of the soul should not lead us to reject it. This logic applies to the word Hades, Tartarus, etc, which the ancient Greeks meant the underworld or place of the dead or a deities in themselves. The concept of the place of the dead in the Old Testament where humans consciously went upon physical death is what is intended, whether or not primitive peoples or later Greek philosophers believed in it.
The fact that the Greeks also used the term "Logos" to mean "reason" and other things does not necessarily mean that we and St. John the Evangelist should reject the term when applied to Christ, the Logos of the Father.
The fact that other cultures, primitive and otherwise, believed that we were created by supernatural gods, should not lead us to reject the idea that God created the heavens and the earth.
The fact that pesians, greeks, and indians believed in the king's garden "Paradise" the Elysian fields or other such concepts that many cultures look forward to should not lead us as Christians to reject the idea of "Paradise" or assume the Christ was borrowing from mythologies when he said, "today you will be with Me in Paradise" [not that anyone has done that.
I think all primitive culutres, not only the greeks, because all humans were originally wired to look for God and were made in His Image and Likeness originally, they intuitively know tha there is something in them that lives on after death. If they don't have the truths revealed to them, they will make up mythologies based on that intuition about something that is true, consciousness after death.
For this reason, we can reject Platos concept of the pre-existance of the human soul/spirit, natural, self-sufficient and self-existant immortality, but concur with Plat on the third point, that he was, as were most cultures, that there is consciousness immediately after death, whehter you call it a soul/spirit.... or any other term.
If we are conscious after death, as the One Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Orthodox Church teaches, as His Reverence Father Peter, His Reverence Father Thomas Hopko, and Biboboy affirm, WHY NOT call it a soul/spirit living outside the body, even if this does concur with one aspect of what Plato and other pagans believed.
Forgive me if my logic and thinking is faulty. I am trying to come to a correct understanding of our Orthodox Faith and these new ideas are concerning me and can sometimes be mistakenly taken to imply that we are teaching that some people, if not most lose consciousness and lose feeling and awareness of God's love after physical death and thus feel cut off from him because they feel nothing, GOD FORBID.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12724.msg149546#msg149546 date=1324999840] I don't agree.
To deny the consciousness of the souls of the departed is not Orthodox.
To suggest that there is no immortal soul is not Orthodox.
To suggest that the soul sleeps and that there is no intermediate state is not Orthodox.
You seem simply to be saying that anyone who does not agree with your position is corrupted by Greek philosophy and then deny the teachings of the greatest Fathers of the Church.
When we elevate our own opinion over that of the Fathers then we are not Orthodox. The Fathers are in agreement that the soul/spirit exists without the body. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no 'different school', just a few writers whose views the Church rejected. It is not permissible to hunt out one or two such writers and suggest that their personal views are of the same authority as the constant teaching of the Church.
It is not Orthodox to suggest that the soul/spirit is not conscious and in existence between death and the resurrection. It is not Orthodox at all. The way to confirm who is right is not to judge the Fathers but submit to their witness. Anyone who says that we should dismiss the teachings of St Athanasius, St John Chrysostom, St Gregory, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, St Cyril, St Severus and countless others is not speaking in accordance with Orthodoxy. These great Fathers are the measure and standard of Orthodoxy.
Strange how you would say that, yet the Theologian himself wrote that there is nothing wrong with speculating about the soul, whether we believed or rebuked Plato's theory of the immortal soul, or believed or rebuked Aristotle's theory of the mortal soul. I cannot claim whether one opinion or the other is absolutely necessary dogma of Orthodoxy, as the Church Fathers, even the ones you mentioned, are not consistent with the other's thoughts on the soul.
I don't believe in naive Orthodoxy. It's more honest for me to say that there were speculations from two schools of thought, both of whom are respected as Orthodox Church Fathers, than to stubbornly say that one or the other is Orthodox at the exclusion of the other. In the end, they're both speculative - and the Platonic metaphysics today contradicts all we know in the various fields of psychology and neuroscience, so even those sciences need to be seriously considered before raising up the Orthodoxy flag when it would appear ridiculous and superstitious thought to a person living in the 21st century.
With regards to the two authors I mentioned, and whom I quoted in full in their consideration of the soul's dormition after death, they are, unfortunately, our only two authors who brought up this subject. There is, as you probably know, very scarce primary sources and secondary research on the Syriac Fathers, and the field has only become of recent interest to some scholars. We have yet to wait for further discoveries, before dismissing these two Fathers I brought up as erring in their thoughts on the soul after death. After all, I haven't read anywhere that St. Ephrem and St. Aphrahat had unorthodox opinions. There is, however, a Syrian council in the 7th or 8th centuries that did bring up the subject of the soul after death, and the view of the Alexandrians that the soul lived on after death and was fully conscious was condemned as the heresy of Origenism. Unfortunately, I'm relying on my notes on this council, and I don't have any of the primary or secondary sources of this council. I'm also unsure if this council was one of Orthodox bishops, or Chalcedonians, or Nestorians.
In answer to metouro, here's what the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, wrote: "Attack the silence of Pythagoras, or the Orphic beans, or the extraordinary pretentiousness of 'Thus spake the Master.' Attack Plato's Ideas, and the Re-embodiments and Cycles of our souls, and their Recollections, and those distasteful love-affairs where the soul was the object, but the beautiful body the route. Then there is Epicurus' atheism, or his atoms, or his ideal of Pleasure, unworthy of a philosopher; or Aristotle's mean conception of Providence, his artificial system, his mortal view of the soul, and the human-centred nature of his teaching. Or what about the superciliousness of the Stoics, the greed and vulgarity of the Cynics?
"Attack 'the Void' -- which is full of nonsense, or all the mumbo-jumbo of gods and sacrifices, idols, demons beneficent or malignant, of soothsaying, summoning the gods or the spirits of the dead, and of the influence of the stars.
"If, however, you reject these subjects as unworthy of you intellect, being petty and often refuted, and you wish to move in your own field, and fulfill your ambitions there: here also I will provide you with broad highways. Speculate about the Universe -- or Universes, about Matter, the Soul, about Natures (good and evil) endowed with reason, about the Resurrection, the judgment, Reward and Punishment, or about the Sufferings of Christ. In these questions to hit the mark is not useless, to miss it is not dangerous. But of God himself the knowledge we shall have in this life will be little, though soon after it will perhaps be more perfect, in the same Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Gregory the Theologian, First Theological Oration, Oration 27:10).
[quote author=metouro link=topic=12724.msg149585#msg149585 date=1325042633] If we ARE conscious immediately after death and we are NOT in our physical bodies and have not yet been resurrected, then why not call it a soul/spirit.
Is the soul and spirit the same thing? Can these terms be use interchangeably?
[quote author=LoveisDivine link=topic=12724.msg149593#msg149593 date=1325053700] [quote author=metouro link=topic=12724.msg149585#msg149585 date=1325042633] If we ARE conscious immediately after death and we are NOT in our physical bodies and have not yet been resurrected, then why not call it a soul/spirit.
Is the soul and spirit the same thing? Can these terms be use interchangeably?
This is the question I was waiting for. Answering this question should clear up the confusion in this thread with regards to some of the Fathers saying especially with those of St Ephraim.
I am in the middle of writing a lengthy paper on this subject. Posting opinions back and forth will nit answer your questions so I am researching and writing.
Many modern Fathers, including the late Rev. Fr. Alexander Schmmemann 's metaphysics, such as those espoused at www.schmemann.org/byhim/thechristianconceptofdeath.html seem to convey that there is no such thing as living as a conscious spirit in joy and peace in Paradise before the resurrection. To dwell on anything else besides the resurrectionis Pagan/Platonic !!
The only statement he makes that seems somewhat in line with Orthodoxy, but does not explain in any way, is when he states in the fourth last paragraph," "No, man does not disappear in death, for creation may not destroy that which God has called from nothingness into being. But man is plunged into death, into the darkness of lifelessness and debility. He, as the Apostle Paul says, is given over to destruction and ruin." Many such statements come close to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Adventists, and other cults who teach souls sleep or who deny a joyous intermediate state for those in Christ.
Other than that, he appears to me to be completely denying a life of bliss in Paradise before the resurrection.
What happened to Abraham's Bossom? What happened to "Today you will be with me in Paradise"? What happened to "to die is gain"? What happened to "I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"? What happened to "I must soon put off this tent"?
These biblical verses, based on what Fr. Alexander Schmemman is saying, would be "platonic" and not really Christian.
WHY, as Orthodox Christians, can we not accept that THERE IS a continuation of conscious, joyous, disembodied existance in Paradise, that we are to look forward to WHILE AWAITING ALSO the Physical Resurrection. It seems to me that MANY Orthodox are attempting to focus on the Resurrection (and rightly so, perhaps) but WRONGL, DENYING a joyous spiritual existance in the spirit world, in Paradise, outside of the body, while awaiting the Resurrection.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS PLATONIC. Why do so many Modern Eastern Fathers think that it is??
If it were, then Sts Peter, Paul, and John would also have been erroneously influenced by Platonism. I can not believe that this is so.
Let us stop calling our human brothers heretics or fools but we can only judge their beliefs as heresy
St Paul says to love the brotherhood
I support the work of destroying heresy but it is not necessary to reject and hurt noone for Jesus said blessed are the peace makers
Anyone who insists on his own doctrine is a proud man You already said we do not know how God will judge the world we can keep warning people against erring doctrines and for them to not be complacent with their life for eternal judgement is a possibility and other doctrines can not be accepted now because of the divisions and so going against church teaching on a public level is not good because a house divided against itself will be destroyed
With new teachings there must be new shepherding So one member of the church can not have different beliefs to the church on a public level because there is noone shepherding the flock with that doctrine If the world was in the hands on the clergy I would tell them to consider making peace and healing
There are so many things wrong with what Fr. Thomas Hopko has said. I have to be honest, the last sermon I listened to of his completely turned me off. He was speaking of the true church, in this he completely dissed the Oriental Orthodox and oddly took the stance that the Eastern Orthodox is the only true church. From that point on I decided not to listen to him and to be completely honest, my general rule from now on is not to read any Eastern Orthodox. No offense to them, but I am Coptic and that is what I will read. I have everything right here in my church.
which addresses this issue using the fathers of the first centuries. There is a vast amount of further material which universally supports the Orthodox teaching on this subject and I am preparing a second paper/podcast on the teaching of St Severus on this subject.
Do not believe those who say that the teaching of the Church is paganism or platonism.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12724.msg154127#msg154127 date=1333437195] This is a very serious error indeed which is being propagated by a few.
which addresses this issue using the fathers of the first centuries. There is a vast amount of further material which universally supports the Orthodox teaching on this subject and I am preparing a second paper/podcast on the teaching of St Severus on this subject.
Do not believe those who say that the teaching of the Church is paganism or platonism.
Rev. Fr. Peter.
Thank you for Your Reverence' podcast. It is a comforting antidote to the fear of death results from those propogating that death should continue to be looked at as a horror.
I wish there were a definitive Orthodox study to show that Plato's idea of the departure of the soul consciously to another world- that part alone od his teaching- IS in line with older Jewish beliefs od a xonsxious soul after death and of Orthodox Chriatian beliefs rather than Christian interpretation of scripture and tradition being lead by false plaronic assumptions.
The article xited above even states that St. Athanasius used Platomic reasoning to argue for living souls after death.
What about when Samuel appeared to Saul. Is that not a pre-platonic Jewish belief in the soul after death being conscious??
I can't believe that we are being taught to be uncertain and fear death in order to look forward to tje Resurrction?
Can we not look forward to the sporot world and the resurrection. Fr. Schmmeman and I guess also Fr. Hopko also calls rhis other world imagimaey and platonic.
[quote author=mikeforjesus link=topic=12724.msg154123#msg154123 date=1333433795] How do we make sense of the doctrine of the last judgement and people entering paradise straight after they die?
How could they be afraid if they already know they are going to heaven since they were living with Christ straight after death
Unless all people go to God when they die before God gathers out of His kingdom all which offend and doeth lawlessness
But Jesus only said to the right thief he will be with him in paradise today
Does God erase the memory of all people in paradise and in hades temporarily for the last judgement?
The Orthodox Christian faith teaches that the soul goes through a particilar Judgement and receives a foretaste of Heaven in Paradise while awaiting the Resurrction. Others receive a foretaste of hell in Hades while they await the resurrection. Both are conscious.
Christ told the theif on th cross, "today you will be with me in Paradise". The Church understands that this is because Christ descended into Hades before the theif died, conquered it and opened the door to Paradise for the theif and for all those who would Follow Christ thereafter to await the resurrection happily and consciously there.
Those in Paradise arw not afraid they are happy to have a foretaste of their reward and are awaiting the fullness of that reward in Heaven. Those in Hades have a foretaste of their final punishment and are sadly awaiting the final judgement.
Both those in Hades and Paradise retain the memory of their deeds and their loved ones as is apparent from the story of the Rich man in Hades and Lazarus with Abraham.
I think this is an important topic and I am working on another paper/podcast looking at the teaching of St Severus.
If the Lord wills then perhaps I will be able to write something that considers all the Fathers of the Church who wrote on this subject.
When I produced the podcast I restricted myself to the most Orthodox Fathers, but in fact even in the first three centuries there are many other authors who all insist on the conscious and continuing existence of the soul after death, including Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Early Acts of the Martyrs, these are all consistent in their opinion.
The idea that is being propounded is frankly ridiculous. It would make every Father of the Church in error, and all the liturgical texts.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12724.msg154163#msg154163 date=1333486742] The idea that is being propounded is frankly ridiculous. It would make every Father of the Church in error, and all the liturgical texts.
...And the fact that this teaching is being promulgated by very prominent Eastern Orthodox clergy and theologians is indeed quite disturbing.
I think what is happening is a strange acceptance of the idea that the Church Fathers and Orthodox Theology is heavily influenced by Plato and Greek philosophy instead of Biblical anthropology.
If this is accepted then they also have to accept that the Pharisees, Sts. Paul, Peter, and John and even the Lord Jesus taught from a Platonistic influence when they spoke in words that implied a soul/ spirit as distinct from the body and sirvives death since, many claim the Jewish Scriptures had no difinitive concept of an immortal/ conscious soul that survives death. It keeps getting restated that the idea of soul survival crept in through hellenistic Judaism as they interacted with expanding Greek society and the post exhilic Jews adopted these platonic ideas.
This is the main idea that needs to be rebutted
Would the story of Saul Seeking Samuel through the witch of endor also be of Platonic influence, I ask??
We know that Most Fathers believe in the conscious and intermediate state of souls. What is needed is a rebuttal to answer whether or not these Fathers are influenced by Platonic /Greek ideas and if so to what extent and do these ideas reflect reality. Many have charged that even the Lord Jesus in the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus was using prevailing Greek/ Platonic thought to make a point. Is this so? And if this is so, does the Parable reflect metaphysical reality? If so, can we then say that Plato's idea on the gact that we have souls that leave bodies is correct and in lone with Christianity despite other ideas? How can we show that the idea of the soul leaving the body is not borrowed from Greek thinking alone?
Of course it is not borrowed from Greek philosophy as something corrupting and wrong. The idea of the continuing and conscious existence of the soul is true. That it is true is shown by the fact that it is the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church which teaches that which is true. It is not a Platonic influence, as if that mattered, but an almost universal human perception.
These few who dispute this must show how they are not accusing the whole company of the Fathers, the community of the Faithful and all the liturgical and spiritual tradition of the Church as being false and corrupt! There is no need for Orthodoxy to defend itself against those who preach error. Ut is enough to rely on the teachings of the Fathers.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12724.msg154714#msg154714 date=1334702954] Of course it is not borrowed from Greek philosophy as something corrupting and wrong. The idea of the continuing and conscious existence of the soul is true. That it is true is shown by the fact that it is the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church which teaches that which is true. It is not a Platonic influence, as if that mattered, but an almost universal human perception.
These few who dispute this must show how they are not accusing the whole company of the Fathers, the community of the Faithful and all the liturgical and spiritual tradition of the Church as being false and corrupt! There is no need for Orthodoxy to defend itself against those who preach error. Ut is enough to rely on the teachings of the Fathers.
Abouna, will you do a rebuttal of this? Like directly address this, then refute it?
Comments
Why should we not say that a soul which used to be associated with a body is now with Christ?
I tend to agree.
If we ARE conscious immediately after death and we are NOT in our physical bodies and have not yet been resurrected, then why not call it a soul/spirit.
The fact that Plato used the term soul to mean things that are erroneous to the Christian concept of the soul should not lead us to reject it. This logic applies to the word Hades, Tartarus, etc, which the ancient Greeks meant the underworld or place of the dead or a deities in themselves. The concept of the place of the dead in the Old Testament where humans consciously went upon physical death is what is intended, whether or not primitive peoples or later Greek philosophers believed in it.
The fact that the Greeks also used the term "Logos" to mean "reason" and other things does not necessarily mean that we and St. John the Evangelist should reject the term when applied to Christ, the Logos of the Father.
The fact that other cultures, primitive and otherwise, believed that we were created by supernatural gods, should not lead us to reject the idea that God created the heavens and the earth.
The fact that pesians, greeks, and indians believed in the king's garden "Paradise" the Elysian fields or other such concepts that many cultures look forward to should not lead us as Christians to reject the idea of "Paradise" or assume the Christ was borrowing from mythologies when he said, "today you will be with Me in Paradise" [not that anyone has done that.
I think all primitive culutres, not only the greeks, because all humans were originally wired to look for God and were made in His Image and Likeness originally, they intuitively know tha there is something in them that lives on after death. If they don't have the truths revealed to them, they will make up mythologies based on that intuition about something that is true, consciousness after death.
For this reason, we can reject Platos concept of the pre-existance of the human soul/spirit, natural, self-sufficient and self-existant immortality, but concur with Plat on the third point, that he was, as were most cultures, that there is consciousness immediately after death, whehter you call it a soul/spirit.... or any other term.
If we are conscious after death, as the One Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Orthodox Church teaches, as His Reverence Father Peter, His Reverence Father Thomas Hopko, and Biboboy affirm, WHY NOT call it a soul/spirit living outside the body, even if this does concur with one aspect of what Plato and other pagans believed.
Forgive me if my logic and thinking is faulty. I am trying to come to a correct understanding of our Orthodox Faith and these new ideas are concerning me and can sometimes be mistakenly taken to imply that we are teaching that some people, if not most lose consciousness and lose feeling and awareness of God's love after physical death and thus feel cut off from him because they feel nothing, GOD FORBID.
I don't agree.
To deny the consciousness of the souls of the departed is not Orthodox.
To suggest that there is no immortal soul is not Orthodox.
To suggest that the soul sleeps and that there is no intermediate state is not Orthodox.
You seem simply to be saying that anyone who does not agree with your position is corrupted by Greek philosophy and then deny the teachings of the greatest Fathers of the Church.
When we elevate our own opinion over that of the Fathers then we are not Orthodox. The Fathers are in agreement that the soul/spirit exists without the body. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no 'different school', just a few writers whose views the Church rejected. It is not permissible to hunt out one or two such writers and suggest that their personal views are of the same authority as the constant teaching of the Church.
It is not Orthodox to suggest that the soul/spirit is not conscious and in existence between death and the resurrection. It is not Orthodox at all. The way to confirm who is right is not to judge the Fathers but submit to their witness. Anyone who says that we should dismiss the teachings of St Athanasius, St John Chrysostom, St Gregory, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, St Cyril, St Severus and countless others is not speaking in accordance with Orthodoxy. These great Fathers are the measure and standard of Orthodoxy.
Strange how you would say that, yet the Theologian himself wrote that there is nothing wrong with speculating about the soul, whether we believed or rebuked Plato's theory of the immortal soul, or believed or rebuked Aristotle's theory of the mortal soul. I cannot claim whether one opinion or the other is absolutely necessary dogma of Orthodoxy, as the Church Fathers, even the ones you mentioned, are not consistent with the other's thoughts on the soul.
I don't believe in naive Orthodoxy. It's more honest for me to say that there were speculations from two schools of thought, both of whom are respected as Orthodox Church Fathers, than to stubbornly say that one or the other is Orthodox at the exclusion of the other. In the end, they're both speculative - and the Platonic metaphysics today contradicts all we know in the various fields of psychology and neuroscience, so even those sciences need to be seriously considered before raising up the Orthodoxy flag when it would appear ridiculous and superstitious thought to a person living in the 21st century.
With regards to the two authors I mentioned, and whom I quoted in full in their consideration of the soul's dormition after death, they are, unfortunately, our only two authors who brought up this subject. There is, as you probably know, very scarce primary sources and secondary research on the Syriac Fathers, and the field has only become of recent interest to some scholars. We have yet to wait for further discoveries, before dismissing these two Fathers I brought up as erring in their thoughts on the soul after death. After all, I haven't read anywhere that St. Ephrem and St. Aphrahat had unorthodox opinions. There is, however, a Syrian council in the 7th or 8th centuries that did bring up the subject of the soul after death, and the view of the Alexandrians that the soul lived on after death and was fully conscious was condemned as the heresy of Origenism. Unfortunately, I'm relying on my notes on this council, and I don't have any of the primary or secondary sources of this council. I'm also unsure if this council was one of Orthodox bishops, or Chalcedonians, or Nestorians.
In answer to metouro, here's what the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, wrote:
"Attack the silence of Pythagoras, or the Orphic beans, or the extraordinary pretentiousness of 'Thus spake the Master.' Attack Plato's Ideas, and the Re-embodiments and Cycles of our souls, and their Recollections, and those distasteful love-affairs where the soul was the object, but the beautiful body the route. Then there is Epicurus' atheism, or his atoms, or his ideal of Pleasure, unworthy of a philosopher; or Aristotle's mean conception of Providence, his artificial system, his mortal view of the soul, and the human-centred nature of his teaching. Or what about the superciliousness of the Stoics, the greed and vulgarity of the Cynics?
"Attack 'the Void' -- which is full of nonsense, or all the mumbo-jumbo of gods and sacrifices, idols, demons beneficent or malignant, of soothsaying, summoning the gods or the spirits of the dead, and of the influence of the stars.
"If, however, you reject these subjects as unworthy of you intellect, being petty and often refuted, and you wish to move in your own field, and fulfill your ambitions there: here also I will provide you with broad highways. Speculate about the Universe -- or Universes, about Matter, the Soul, about Natures (good and evil) endowed with reason, about the Resurrection, the judgment, Reward and Punishment, or about the Sufferings of Christ. In these questions to hit the mark is not useless, to miss it is not dangerous. But of God himself the knowledge we shall have in this life will be little, though soon after it will perhaps be more perfect, in the same Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Gregory the Theologian, First Theological Oration, Oration 27:10).
If we ARE conscious immediately after death and we are NOT in our physical bodies and have not yet been resurrected, then why not call it a soul/spirit.
Is the soul and spirit the same thing? Can these terms be use interchangeably?
[quote author=metouro link=topic=12724.msg149585#msg149585 date=1325042633]
If we ARE conscious immediately after death and we are NOT in our physical bodies and have not yet been resurrected, then why not call it a soul/spirit.
Is the soul and spirit the same thing? Can these terms be use interchangeably?
This is the question I was waiting for. Answering this question should clear up the confusion in this thread with regards to some of the Fathers saying especially with those of St Ephraim.
So disappointed. :(
Many modern Fathers, including the late Rev. Fr. Alexander Schmmemann 's metaphysics, such as those espoused at www.schmemann.org/byhim/thechristianconceptofdeath.html seem to convey that there is no such thing as living as a conscious spirit in joy and peace in Paradise before the resurrection. To dwell on anything else besides the resurrectionis Pagan/Platonic !!
The only statement he makes that seems somewhat in line with Orthodoxy, but does not explain in any way, is when he states in the fourth last paragraph," "No, man does not disappear in death, for creation may not destroy that which God has called from nothingness into being. But man is plunged into death, into the darkness of lifelessness and debility. He, as the Apostle Paul says, is given over to destruction and ruin." Many such statements come close to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Adventists, and other cults who teach souls sleep or who deny a joyous intermediate state for those in Christ.
Other than that, he appears to me to be completely denying a life of bliss in Paradise before the resurrection.
What happened to Abraham's Bossom?
What happened to "Today you will be with me in Paradise"?
What happened to "to die is gain"?
What happened to "I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"?
What happened to "I must soon put off this tent"?
These biblical verses, based on what Fr. Alexander Schmemman is saying, would be "platonic" and not really Christian.
WHY, as Orthodox Christians, can we not accept that THERE IS a continuation of conscious, joyous, disembodied existance in Paradise, that we are to look forward to WHILE AWAITING ALSO the Physical Resurrection. It seems to me that MANY Orthodox are attempting to focus on the Resurrection (and rightly so, perhaps) but WRONGL, DENYING a joyous spiritual existance in the spirit world, in Paradise, outside of the body, while awaiting the Resurrection.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS PLATONIC. Why do so many Modern Eastern Fathers think that it is??
If it were, then Sts Peter, Paul, and John would also have been erroneously influenced by Platonism. I can not believe that this is so.
What do you think?
How could they be afraid if they already know they are going to heaven since they were living with Christ straight after death
Unless all people go to God when they die before God gathers out of His kingdom all which offend and doeth lawlessness
But Jesus only said to the right thief he will be with him in paradise today
Does God erase the memory of all people in paradise and in hades temporarily for the last judgement?
St Paul says to love the brotherhood
I support the work of destroying heresy but it is not necessary to reject and hurt noone for Jesus said blessed are the peace makers
Anyone who insists on his own doctrine is a proud man
You already said we do not know how God will judge the world
we can keep warning people against erring doctrines and for them to not be complacent with their life for eternal judgement is a possibility and other doctrines can not be accepted now because of the divisions and so going against church teaching on a public level is not good because a house divided against itself will be destroyed
With new teachings there must be new shepherding
So one member of the church can not have different beliefs to the church
on a public level because there is noone shepherding the flock with that doctrine
If the world was in the hands on the clergy I would tell them to consider making peace and healing
Just disturbing the stuff that man says.
Please listen to my podcast here...
http://orthodoxfaith.podbean.com/2012/01/27/the-intermediate-state-of-the-soul-after-death/
The Intermediate State of the Soul after Death
which addresses this issue using the fathers of the first centuries. There is a vast amount of further material which universally supports the Orthodox teaching on this subject and I am preparing a second paper/podcast on the teaching of St Severus on this subject.
Do not believe those who say that the teaching of the Church is paganism or platonism.
This is a very serious error indeed which is being propagated by a few.
Please listen to my podcast here...
http://orthodoxfaith.podbean.com/2012/01/27/the-intermediate-state-of-the-soul-after-death/
The Intermediate State of the Soul after Death
which addresses this issue using the fathers of the first centuries. There is a vast amount of further material which universally supports the Orthodox teaching on this subject and I am preparing a second paper/podcast on the teaching of St Severus on this subject.
Do not believe those who say that the teaching of the Church is paganism or platonism.
Rev. Fr. Peter.
Thank you for Your Reverence' podcast. It is a comforting antidote to the fear of death results from those propogating that death should continue to be looked at as a horror.
I wish there were a definitive Orthodox study to show that Plato's idea of the departure of the soul consciously to another world- that part alone od his teaching- IS in line with older Jewish beliefs od a xonsxious soul after death and of Orthodox Chriatian beliefs rather than Christian interpretation of scripture and tradition being lead by false plaronic assumptions.
The article xited above even states that St. Athanasius used Platomic reasoning to argue for living souls after death.
What about when Samuel appeared to Saul. Is that not a pre-platonic Jewish belief in the soul after death being conscious??
I can't believe that we are being taught to be uncertain and fear death in order to look forward to tje Resurrction?
Can we not look forward to the sporot world and the resurrection. Fr. Schmmeman and I guess also Fr. Hopko also calls rhis other world imagimaey and platonic.
Fr. Peter: Please help. God bless Yoie Reverence.
How do we make sense of the doctrine of the last judgement and people entering paradise straight after they die?
How could they be afraid if they already know they are going to heaven since they were living with Christ straight after death
Unless all people go to God when they die before God gathers out of His kingdom all which offend and doeth lawlessness
But Jesus only said to the right thief he will be with him in paradise today
Does God erase the memory of all people in paradise and in hades temporarily for the last judgement?
The Orthodox Christian faith teaches that the soul goes through a particilar Judgement and receives a foretaste of Heaven in Paradise while awaiting the Resurrction. Others receive a foretaste of hell in Hades while they await the resurrection. Both are conscious.
Christ told the theif on th cross, "today you will be with me in Paradise". The Church understands that this is because Christ descended into Hades before the theif died, conquered it and opened the door to Paradise for the theif and for all those who would Follow Christ thereafter to await the resurrection happily and consciously there.
Those in Paradise arw not afraid they are happy to have a foretaste of their reward and are awaiting the fullness of that reward in Heaven. Those in Hades have a foretaste of their final punishment and are sadly awaiting the final judgement.
Both those in Hades and Paradise retain the memory of their deeds and their loved ones as is apparent from the story of the Rich man in Hades and Lazarus with Abraham.
If the Lord wills then perhaps I will be able to write something that considers all the Fathers of the Church who wrote on this subject.
When I produced the podcast I restricted myself to the most Orthodox Fathers, but in fact even in the first three centuries there are many other authors who all insist on the conscious and continuing existence of the soul after death, including Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Early Acts of the Martyrs, these are all consistent in their opinion.
The idea that is being propounded is frankly ridiculous. It would make every Father of the Church in error, and all the liturgical texts.
The idea that is being propounded is frankly ridiculous. It would make every Father of the Church in error, and all the liturgical texts.
...And the fact that this teaching is being promulgated by very prominent Eastern Orthodox clergy and theologians is indeed quite disturbing.
✞✞✞
If this is accepted then they also have to accept that the Pharisees, Sts. Paul, Peter, and John and even the Lord Jesus taught from a Platonistic influence when they spoke in words that implied a soul/ spirit as distinct from the body and sirvives death since, many claim the Jewish Scriptures had no difinitive concept of an immortal/ conscious soul that survives death. It keeps getting restated that the idea of soul survival crept in through hellenistic Judaism as they interacted with expanding Greek society and the post exhilic Jews adopted these platonic ideas.
This is the main idea that needs to be rebutted
Would the story of Saul Seeking Samuel through the witch of endor also be of Platonic influence, I ask??
These few who dispute this must show how they are not accusing the whole company of the Fathers, the community of the Faithful and all the liturgical and spiritual tradition of the Church as being false and corrupt! There is no need for Orthodoxy to defend itself against those who preach error. Ut is enough to rely on the teachings of the Fathers.
Of course it is not borrowed from Greek philosophy as something corrupting and wrong. The idea of the continuing and conscious existence of the soul is true. That it is true is shown by the fact that it is the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church which teaches that which is true. It is not a Platonic influence, as if that mattered, but an almost universal human perception.
These few who dispute this must show how they are not accusing the whole company of the Fathers, the community of the Faithful and all the liturgical and spiritual tradition of the Church as being false and corrupt! There is no need for Orthodoxy to defend itself against those who preach error. Ut is enough to rely on the teachings of the Fathers.
Abouna, will you do a rebuttal of this? Like directly address this, then refute it?