Soul coeternal with god ?

[Cosmos-intérieur]

there are several authors who have maintained that the soul is co-eternal with god.

I came across one of them by Google today.
The Souls - Their Relation to Brahman

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yeah, I trust everything I find on Google.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

Yeah, I trust everything I find on Google.

but I knew the site for having read it is quite reliable, of all way it is not the question it is a question of sharing different theological and philosophical view neither more nor less

 

[Brickjectivity]

there are several authors who have maintained that the soul is co-eternal with god.

I came across one of them by Google today.
The Souls - Their Relation to Brahman

I am neither eastern orthodox nor roman, however I suspect that this is the type of theology that they have, too. There is an important concept of union with God and the denial of self in the gospels. This could be very similar to your ideas about being co-eternal with God, however it is not usually thought of as a universal trait but as something which must be seized upon by the individual.

As for 'Brahman': it is difficult (for me) to argue which Christian terms would closely match 'Brahman'. It will vary from Christian to Christian how they think about Christian terms. I would guess 'Heavens' or 'Glory' to be Brahman usually, not 'God'. God is often claimed to be the creator, however the heavens pre-exist creation. So does glory. In a person who thinks of God as the physical creator, then Brahman most closely matches Glory or Heavens; but in a person who thinks of all physical things as existing within God then God is a closer equivalent for 'Brahman'. There are caveats, too.

Here is one caveat: All catholics and all protestants are probably familiar with the scripture which says "In Him we live and move and have our being." This could refer to physical creation, and most people think of it that way. It may not. It may refer to the life in Christ which is a concept of union and leaving one's old ways behind. My point about this is that it depends upon what catholic or what protestant you are talking to whether they have a Brahman equivalent.

Also it is common for speakers to claim God creates the physical universe, however in Christian NT writings this is not necessarily a closed case. You cannot know what a Christian thinks about this, and their minds can change about it over time, too. God definitely creates Christianity, but that is not a physical creation. God creates Judaism, but that is not a physical creation but a moral one and a cultural one. Does God create the physical world? That is a gray area.

If God does create the physical universe then definitely neither God nor Heavens nor Glory are equivalent terms to Brahmam which implies no creation, however if God is the creator of Judaism or of Christianity and not of the physical universe then it is easier to consider some catholic terms as equivalent to Brahman. If the universe is simply a subset of God or is God then there is a similarity with Brahman. There are catholics and protestants who consider the universe to be either God or a subset of God which makes God sort of similar to Brahman in their case. That is true, but the Christian scriptures can confuse you about this. They seem to refer to God and Heavens separately in their terminology thought they also seem to equate God with heaven. Is God heaven? Is God the creator of Heaven? Does God create God? It is difficult, as I pointed out, to definitely say that there is a Brahman equivalent or isn't. There is, depending.

And recall what I said in the first paragraph about co-eternal. That requires much less exposition. Its fairly straight-forward. The main difficulty is in determining if there is an equivalent to Brahman.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

there is the idea of Deification in Catholic Christianity (Orthodox especially less Roman Catholicism) but the soul is not eternal in itself, it becomes like God (but not god) by the grace of god.

It's a bit like the snowflake which becomes luminous by receiving the light of the sun but which does not produce any itself.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

but what is particular to the systems of L.D. Dik****
it is that he considers that the soul is distinct from God but at the same time eternal in itself (without beginning or end) there are systems which consider the individual soul as eternal but not in an independent way.

apparently it is close to the meykandar system

 

[stvdv]

there are several authors who have maintained that the soul is co-eternal with god.

I came across one of them by Google today.
The Souls - Their Relation to Brahman

Great link, thanks for sharing. Very true

Yeah, I trust everything I find on Google.

For sure I don't trust your insinuation

but I knew the site for having read it is quite reliable

I glanced at it...seems genuine to me

of all way it is not the question it is a question of sharing different theological and philosophical view neither more nor less

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

Yes

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

if not what do you think of the article?

 

[Veyl]

there are several authors who have maintained that the soul is co-eternal with god.

I came across one of them by Google today.
The Souls - Their Relation to Brahman

Hindus and Mormons come off of the top of the head in regards to that. Granted, the former also includes sects that identify the soul with God, if you're looking to isolate this into "pure" co-eternality of spirits with God. Otherwise, you could probably include eternality more generally with things like Jainism, Thelema, and such.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

yes obviously the eternity of the spirit is not specific to a single religion.
what is unique to l.D dik**** (and madvha acharya and also Meykandar and a few others) is to claim that the spirit is eternal as an entity distinct from Gods (but not necessarily separate for meykandar).

the jaïn vision of jiva seems to be close to that of the spirit of joseph smith too.
there are also the philosophers john mcctaggart and george holmes howison who are in this idea of a soul without beginning or end.

 

[rational experiences]

Without a living human as the storyteller no story exists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah, I trust everything I find on Google.

Lol.

I call it the all knowing one.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

Without a living human as the storyteller no story exists.

Its true

 

[Veyl]

yes obviously the eternity of the spirit is not specific to a single religion.
what is unique to l.D dik**** (and madvha acharya and also Meykandar and a few others) is to claim that the spirit is eternal as an entity distinct from Gods (but not necessarily separate for meykandar).

the jaïn vision of jiva seems to be close to that of the spirit of joseph smith too.
there are also the philosophers john mcctaggart and george holmes howison who are in this idea of a soul without beginning or end.

Yeah, there are a fair amount of models of the uncreated soul, just isn't explicitly brought up that often. Good to hear your mention of the philosophers in any case, they are rarely represented in this area, outside of Plato.

 

[rational experiences]

Its true

Without a human living there isn't any story. No themes. No descriptions said by living biology. Where the living tells all stories.

After life dies the state recording life living keeps the memory. Proven by psychics. That state isn't used by machines for a theist wanting a new atmospheric resource. By themes.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

Yeah, there are a fair amount of models of the uncreated soul, just isn't explicitly brought up that often. Good to hear your mention of the philosophers in any case, they are rarely represented in this area, outside of Plato.

yes as I said it is the double idea of a soul that would be distinct and at the same time would coexist eternally near God which is a rare idea.
the idea that the soul would be eternal as a God taking form is rather banal.
but here the soul is considered as its own ontological category.

 

[Veyl]

yes as I said it is the double idea of a soul that would be distinct and at the same time would coexist eternally near God which is a rare idea.
the idea that the soul would be eternal as a God taking form is rather banal.
but here the soul is considered as its own ontological category.

I'm not sure if the soul possessing eternality as the incarnation of a God is exactly banal, but it does have a different character than just being eternal. There's also lots of weird sub-areas within this, such as monistic concepts that would seem to suggest something more impersonal, or Jainism wherein a single, creative God is denied and the soul itself is simply God with all of the appropriate divine attributes. Your mention of the soul as its own category does bring to mind Samkhya, actually. Generally speaking, soul-centered ontologies are actually quite rare.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

I also thought of samkhya, that's right, we could have thought of the thetan of the Scientologists who possesses divine attributes. on the other hand I do not know if for the scientologists Thetan is eternal ?

 

[ajay0]

Hindu sects like the Arya Samaj and Brahmakumaris have philosophies that emphasizes the eternal nature of God, soul and nature and consider them to be distinct from each other.

The relationship between humans and God

https://www.esamskriti.com/e/History/Indian-History/Teachings-of-Arya-Samaj-4.aspx