Soul and body in life after death : an examination of the New Testament evidence, with some reference to Patristic exegesis
This thesis examines the NT evidence regarding the post-mortem relation of soul and body with special emphasis on whether the NT supports the traditional Christian view that after death the soul continues to exist apart from the body and that the two entities are reunited only at the Parousia. The background section discusses the ideas of the hereafter in ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia/Iran, Greece, in the OT, intertestamental literature and in Gnosticism. The NT evidence is discussed with some reference to patristic exegesis. The following conclusions are reached: (1) (a) The NT evidence supports the traditional view. While Oscar Cullmann is right in defending the traditional view, he does not argue his point in detail. (b) The intermediate state cannot be de-temporalized by saying that from the perspective of the dead there is no time-lag between death and resurrection (so F.F. Bruce, T.F. Torrance. K. Hanhart). There is no evidence that the NT writers held this view. (c) The intermediate state of the soul cannot be disposed of by holding with Bruce and J. Harris that the future body is received at the moment of death. This view is not demanded by the exegesis of 2 Car. 5: 1-10, and is irreconcilable
Osei-Bonsu, Joseph
Future life
Soul and body in life after death : an examination of the New Testament evidence, with some reference to Patristic exegesis. This thesis examines the NT evidence regarding the post-mortem relation of soul and body with special emphasis on whether the NT supports the traditional Christian view that after death the soul continues to exist apart from the body and that the two entities are reunited only at the Parousia. The background section discusses the ideas of the hereafter in ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia/Iran, Greece, in the OT, intertestamental literature and in Gnosticism. The NT evidence is discussed with some reference to patristic exegesis. The following conclusions are reached: (1) (a) The NT evidence supports the traditional view. While Oscar Cullmann is right in defending the traditional view, he does not argue his point in detail. (b) The intermediate state cannot be de-temporalized by saying that from the perspective of the dead there is no time-lag between death and resurrection (so F.F. Bruce, T.F. Torrance. K. Hanhart). There is no evidence that the NT writers held this view. (c) The intermediate state of the soul cannot be disposed of by holding with Bruce and J. Harris that the future body is received at the moment of death. This view is not demanded by the exegesis of 2 Car. 5: 1-10, and is irreconcilable
soul body life_death examination new_testament evidence reference patristic exegesis examines evidence regard post_mortem relation soul body special_emphasis whether support traditional christian view death soul continue exist apart body two_entity background section_discuss idea hereafter ancient_egypt mesopotamia iran greece literature gnosticism evidence discuss_reference patristic exegesis follow conclusion_reach evidence_support traditional_view right defend traditional_view argue point detail intermediate state say perspective dead time death_resurrection tf_torrance evidence writer hold_view intermediate state soul dispose hold harris future body receive moment death view demand exegesis car