The Permanence of the Soul According to Rambam

(Remaining) My soul in my question…So I will ask again what I did not understand

You wrote “As for Maimonides, when a person dies, his mind also no longer exists”. Apparently this contradicts what I saw on YouTube that Maimonides believes that what remains after death is the mind. No??

You are known to be a pioneer and slaughter sacred cows. But to disagree about an explicit YouTube video?! There is a limit….

Bye D’way, green card on me. You're broke.

The Aristotelian evidence for the immateriality of the mind is that, first of all, everything that is perceived through the senses or in the imagination is always something particular, particular, in terms of its color, shape (in the sense of shape), size, and so on. There is nothing perceived by the senses that is both blue and green (in the same way and at the same time). There is no triangle in the physical world that is both isosceles and right-angled. However, the *essence* of the thing is not particular – for example, the essence of the triangle is an intellectual extrapolation that creates a common denominator for both the right-angled and the isosceles triangles, for both the blue and the green triangles – and yet it is perceived, albeit not by the senses, nor by the imagination (it is impossible to imagine a colorless triangle that is both isosceles and right-angled), but by the intellect. From this it follows that what is not particular is not material, and therefore *what perceives* what is not material – is not material in itself.

Second, if the mind were material, then it would have a structure or structure that limits what can be perceived according to this structure: we would perceive things according to the material existence of our mind, and not according to the things themselves, which would not allow the existence of science. However, since science is possible - the mind must be structureless and immaterial. In addition, even if it were conceivable that the mind is material, this claim would not be believed, since if it is not possible to perceive things as they are, it is also not possible to perceive the truth about the question of whether the mind is material or immaterial.

Third, in order to know, the form of the thing, or the significant content of the thing (“what is” the thing we are talking about) must *be received* in some way by the knower. However, if the mind that receives this were material, then the knowledge of the mind would be particular and not universal, because every substance that receives form receives it in a particular way. However, we know universal essences. This means that the mind is not material.

Incidentally, from the materiality of the mind it can be concluded that the survival of the thinking self after death is logically possible, but not that it is actual. The plain text of the Bible does not support Maimonides' claim that there is such a survival. Rather, the wicked are lost forever and the righteous rise in the resurrection of the dead.

It is very possible that the Pashtos of the Bible do believe in the immortality of the soul. Although not according to the Rambam's view, there are quite a few verses that support this immortality. If the soul returns to the God who gave it, the descent into Sheol (the Canaanite world of the dead, according to the Tanakh everyone goes there, righteous and wicked) and even the story of Saul and the woman of affliction.

Some commentators have claimed that the woman of affliction's actions were a lie and a deception, but from the verses it seems that according to the Pashto, the act happened. It also shows that this belief was widespread.

The resurrection of the dead can also be understood through the parable if we follow the Pashto of the Bible. The reason they accepted this belief is because the Sages established this and not according to the Pashto.

In addition, the Pashto is also irrelevant to the person who believes because tradition, the words of the Sages, and various interpretations prevail over it. Beyond that, tradition is the one that gives validity to the words of the Bible, since it determines that it must be taken into account and is the one that determined which books will be included in it.
A concept of sola scriptura is liable to ultimately lead to a challenge to the Holy Scriptures themselves, for why are Jeremiah and the Book of Esther valid, but Maccabees, Enoch and Jubilees not?

Again, I say that there is no reason to say that everything is lost with the loss of the body, but that is not necessary. If Maimonides thinks that we have a soul beyond the body, then even when the body is lost the soul/mind can remain. I see no difficulty here.

I will only add that Aristotle's words on the matter are very obscure and can be understood in several ways.
The 2 main methods are those of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Timatius.

Alexander interprets Aristotle's words so that the active mind is a “potential”. It is not a thing that has an existence in itself and is therefore lost with the body, but it can be “realized” by acquiring wisdom, and thus it “unites” with the active mind and achieves metaphysical existence.

According to Timatius, the active mind is a “miniature model” of the active mind and has an existence in itself and also exists beyond the body. It can be seen as part of the active mind.

According to Alexander, many also understand that in fact the soul does not have an individual existence. If two people have achieved a certain wisdom, what survives is that wisdom and not the individual soul. Just as the triangle does not have an individual metaphysical existence, but only its “shape” is preserved, and in fact every triangle fits into the pattern of the “ideal triangle”.

Most medieval philosophers advocated Alexander's method. In most of his writings, Rambam seems to advocate Alexander's opinion, but there are a few places where he seems to advocate the opinion of Tematius, that is, he believes that the soul/mind is eternal without the attainment of enlightenment, in contradiction to most of his writings.

The unbelievers, as usual, ignore explicit verses.

God tried to elevate man and put him in paradise so that he would not have to deal with survival all day long like the animals. But man (like any spoiled person) jumped over the navel and started talking about being like God, eternal life and the immortality of the soul.

In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return.

Copenhagen
Nedchel”s isosceles

Kobi

I too believed in the world of souls at the time – but the plainness of the scriptures forces me to doubt.

The spirit in the verse ‘and the spirit shall return to God who gave it’ is apparently that without which the body is not alive (like “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” – a spirit that gives life to the dead body), not some kind of Carian self, an Aristotelian intellect, or some kind of personal consciousness. Ecclesiastes did not believe in any form of disembodied life after death:

For the living know that they have died, but the dead know no more, neither is there any reward for them any more, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hatred, and their jealousy are perishable, and they have no more portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6)

— You see, there is no awareness of a dead person. And also (Chapter 3):

For the origin of the sons of man and the origin of the beast – and one origin is called to them, as one dies, so dies another, and one spirit is given to all, and the origin of man is not the same as that of the beast, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all return to the dust. Who knows the spirit of the sons of men that goes up is for the ascent, and the spirit of the beast that goes down is for the descent to the earth. (As a rhetorical question: Do you not know that it is so – because it is not so, in accordance with what I said before: And one thing happens to them, as much as this, so much death).

Regarding Saul and the wife of the spirit, as some commentators thought, it is not at all clear that this is the simple. There are several possibilities for understanding the story, such as that the wife of the spirit lied (and there are hints to this in the story itself), that a demon who pretended to be Samuel lied, and more, but it is less clear to claim that it was Samuel himself, and that he collaborated with the subversive act against the will of the ’ That a person should not turn to a spirit medium to find out what will happen in the future (and here Samuel voluntarily gives him information about what will happen in the future).

In general, it is good to be careful not to extract doctrines from Bible stories that contradict explicit theological statements. The vague is interpreted according to the clear, and not the clear according to the vague.

I will not go into biblical interpretation, but it is unlikely to understand the resurrection of the dead in Isaiah, Daniel, and probably also in several places in the Psalms as a parable. In any case, the ancient interpretive tradition did not understand it as a parable - which provides further evidence in case you have any doubts. The reason for belief in the resurrection of the dead cannot be the sages, since, as many of the early scholars thought, the sages do not have absolute authority to determine what is the truth in matters of belief and opinion (see, for example, the words of Rabbi Avraham ben Ramallah in an article on the sermons of the sages). Rather, as Abarbanel and the Ramallah say, The explicit statement in the spirit of prophecy:

“Daniel and Ezekiel both saw visions of God in the land of the Chaldeans, both were holy and wise… and the prophet Jeremiah said about both of them, “The Lord raised up prophets for us in Babylon”… and the nature of the matters and the style of the words will prove that he was of a higher rank in them than Ezekiel's prophecies, whether in the matter of kingdoms or in the matter of the future redemption and the limitation of its time, and also in the matter of the resurrection of the dead, for as the Rabbi wrote in the Letter of the Resurrection: No scriptures have been found that clearly testify to it without rejection, argument, and challenge, as the words of the angel to Daniel… Daniel was a herald of good news, proclaiming salvation in all this, and he is the pillar on which we lean.” (Ma'ayani Hayeshua, Ma'in 3, Tamar 1)

I don't understand your argument about tradition. After all, it is the (ancient) tradition itself that determined that the resurrection of the dead is the next world. The world of souls as a substitute for the next world is an invention of Maimonides. It's about like criticizing R' Saadia Gaon's view of the wrongness of the belief in reincarnation that spread among the people as a "perception of sola scriptura."

Final Ruling,

It is true that man was probably created naturally as a mortal, but God only prevented him from accessing the tree of life after he sinned.

The cherubim that were intended to guard access to the tree of life are also represented in the Temple in the Holy of Holies.

I didn't understand, apparently if we accept the Bible as one piece of paper, there are verses that are preserved on the Awad.
And so we will be very careful about unclear places like in the Psalms.

The argument here in the debate is that they are later additions?
Why not accept that there is an Awad at all, as the Rasa says.

I believe that the Bible did believe in some kind of survival of the soul/spirit.
First of all, the Bible mentions Sheol quite a few times. And we need to ask ourselves what Sheol is. According to Bible and Ancient Near Eastern studies, Sheol is the Canaanite world of the dead. It is likened to being eaten by the god Death.
The Bible does not elaborate on this, but it must be understood from the cultural and religious context of that period.

Regarding “and the dead know that they will die, etc.”, it is very possible that the intention is that their actions in Sheol have no meaning. There, the existential reality is different.
According to the plain text of the Bible, in quite a few places, it is possible to see that there is no action in Sheol.
Existence there is not mentioned in a positive way and it seems that the reward is in this world.
This is very similar to how the Canaanites perceived the world of the dead, where reality is different and controlled by different gods.

According to the simple explanation, the story with the witch did indeed happen. The later interpretations that the witch was deceived came from rational commentators from the Middle Ages.
The Torah prohibits divination, but that does not mean that divination is not possible. Here, it is precisely an innovation of Maimonides that the Torah is directed towards correct opinions and distances it from the illusions and stupidity of idolaters. There is not a single mention in the Bible that this is the intention.

There are also quite a few contradictions between different books in the Bible, and as a result, the sages even wanted to reject the book of Ezekiel, but on this issue in particular, the Bible is quite consistent in my opinion.
There are also quite a few contradictions between the plain text of the Scriptures, the Darsh, and even the interpretation of the Sages from which they derived laws (from the Torah).

Regarding the resurrection of the dead in Ezekiel and Isaiah, it seems like a parable, like quite a few prophecies, and in Daniel in particular, I think it is more difficult to see it as a parable. But the Book of Daniel (at least part of it) is a book that was written in a very late period and quite a few things were added to it, and it is clear that part of it is pseudo-epigraphic.

The matter of tradition that I mentioned is what determines the interpretation, context, and beliefs of the scriptures. The resurrection of the dead as a plain text and the acceptance of the Book of Daniel comes by virtue of tradition that rejects other books such as Enoch and 2 Maccabees that were written in a not-so-distant period.

The Sage tradition believes in existence after death, and the legends of the Sages are full of descriptions of the world of the dead. And even entire laws were written from these interpretations, so that they are not legends and allegories that can be rejected, but rather a factual description according to the sages.

I do not think that the sages have no authority in matters of faith and the matter is more complex than this or that statement. There are quite a few laws that have been determined this way. But that is not what I claimed.
My claim is that the authority of the Scriptures comes from the power of tradition and not vice versa.
After all, tradition determined what would be included in the canon and what would not. Therefore, tradition is the one authorized to determine what the Scriptures believe.
After all, if the book of Numbers, for example, were not included in the canon, you would never think of taking it seriously.

Incidentally, from the words of Chazal it seems that the world to come is the world of resurrection. In later periods the world to come became the world of souls/heaven and the Tosafot even concluded that there are 2 “worlds to come”: the world of souls/heaven and the world of resurrection.

Kobi,
I also find it simple that looking at the Bible, the soul does not die after death, and especially regarding divination, it is ridiculous. What is an allegory to me? What is not an allegory to me? After all, did Saul believe in this? Yes. So it shows that he believed that something remained.
Only the only question that I understand that can be asked is regarding the judgment in the hereafter. And regarding them, there are more explicit verses (like the end of Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and more) and less explicit verses in the Bible (like the Psalms about what will happen to the wicked and the reward for the righteous) that seem to strongly hint at this.
Specifically, in Job as a demon in chapter 3, it is quite unclear whether there is reward and punishment. But Chazal already commented on this regarding him.

I heard and I remember in passing that even before the time of the giving of the Torah, in Egypt they spoke very explicitly about the awāb, and there is some connection between the Ten Commandments and their perception. As if the Ten Commandments sharpen the sins that the Torah considers serious in relation to the punishment in the awāb that those with an Egyptian background will understand.
And if so, we can accept the method of the commentators that the Torah did not deal with the awāb because of its many invasions. M must know these things inside out.

P.S.
You can read in an interesting way here the theological division in the Bible into body and spirit:
http://tchelet.org.il/article.php?id=338&page=all

Copenhagen
If you rule out the later interpretation, how do you determine that the verses speak of a literal resurrection and not as a parable of the resurrection of Israel or something similar?
After all, many of the words of the prophets are parables.

In addition, from what do you receive the authority of the Bible? And how do you know how to interpret them? There are quite a few ways to interpret them. Even Christians base the authority of the New Testament and the messiahship of Jesus on the Scriptures?
How do you fulfill the commandments? According to the simple interpretation or according to the interpretation of the sages?

I'm not sure why it matters what the ancient Hebrews believed. Even if Ecclesiastes and the author of the Book of Samuel believed in the existence of a world of souls, that doesn't mean that this belief is actually true, but that they believed in it.

In any case, I find it a little hard to believe that God would create a person to live here, for 80 years, for an unknown purpose, and then die. If this world is just a small part of the process of existence, then the mind can rest.

In addition, we don't see justice being done in this world. There is no reward for good or bad deeds, so it is necessary to assume that there is something after death, where a person receives a reward for his deeds.

For all the novices, “And the spirit shall return to God who gave it” was not written by Ecclesiastes but by Chazal.

To all the Nubians,
As is known, the verse “For the beginning of the sons of man and the beginning of the beast and the beginning of one of them” was not written by Ecclesiastes but by the Sadducees and this is related to the Pharisees' argument with them and the things are ancient 🙂

Why can't we say that Ecclesiastes conveys some kind of message in pessimistic thinking until it matures that meaning for something infinite is found in the work of God? Just as the book “Truth and Unstable” by Baal Ha-Atara begins from the broken trough of certainty and moves to plausibility.

Another example of the division between Ecclesiastes and a later addition:
For the origin of man and the origin of beast and one origin to them; as one dies, so dies another; and they all have one spirit; and the difference between man and beast is not; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all return to the dust.

The following verse is a later addition of common infidelity:

Who knows the spirit of the sons of men that goes up, and the spirit of the beast that goes down, to the earth?

The pessimistic thinking of Ecclesiastes is realistic. Humans do not want to die on the one hand (like any living creature), but on the other hand nature forces them to die.

Ecclesiastes spoke of man being happy in his works. And in this he found a small bright spot. Certainly not in the work of the Lord, which is merely a substitute for the dead (a worthy substitute for the common infidel).

Kobi,

It is clear to me that the Bible believed in some kind of life after death. But it is simply a matter of the world of resurrection, as the Mishnah says: “All Israel has a portion *for the world to come*, as it is said: And all your people are righteous *forever they will inherit the land*” and the Psalms “For the LORD loves judgment and will not forsake his saints forever; they are preserved, but the seed of the wicked is cut off.” On the other hand: “The righteous *shall inherit the earth* and dwell *forever upon it*.” That, following the Rambam,”they tend to see this as the soul remaining without a body is an anachronistic projection.

Sheol is another word for the grave. “And the ransom of a soul is dear and empty forever…And a man who visits the night is like a beast, they are likened to death…Like sheep to Sheol that have died… A man who has come to the earth without understanding is like a beast that has become like a beast. (Psalm 94)

That is, the destruction of the wicked one who lacks understanding (who goes to Sheol and remains there) is as eternal as the beast.

We cannot learn from the beliefs of the pagan Canaanite world if they contradict the simple – after all, the purpose of the Bible is to educate us not to learn from this world.

Not only is there “no work” in Sheol. But “his spirit shall go out and return to his ground; in that day his thoughts (=his thoughts) shall perish; and “there is no work *nor device* *nor knowledge* *nor wisdom* in Sheol where you go”. — That is, there is no consciousness. There is no ‘I think’.

If you rely on the story of the woman of the dream, I would say that you are building on mountains hanging from her hair, but I will not go into the long issue in itself.

The sayings about the desire to reject certain books are in a certain sense legendary – They were intended to convey some messages (regarding the problems that a believer has when dealing with the Holy Scriptures, for example) but not to claim that the sages really had the power to conceal anything. As Josephus records, the Bible was basically signed in the fifth century BCE by the members of the Great Council (according to Maimonides) – including prophets – long before these sayings in the sages.

I do not believe that in Isaiah the resurrection of the dead is a parable – but that would lead us into a separate discussion about the interpretive context of all kinds of readings – and this is not the place here.

Regarding Daniel – The assumption that it is late is indeed trendy in secular research (and it cannot be otherwise – because it is full of very detailed and precise prophecies – especially in chapter 11), but a careful study will show that it has no serious backing – and vice versa. In any case, if you believe this, then you reject the Sage tradition ” which clearly attributes the book to the same Daniel who was in Babylon in the sixth century BCE with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and what do you have to do with me complaining in the name of the supposedly binding tradition about a hypothetical world of souls – and a long time ago.

The Book of Enoch and Maccabees had to be rejected because they did not accept books later than the fifth century.

It is true that there are quite a few references in the Sages to the world of souls, but still the ultimate world of reward and punishment to which the readings point, the purpose of the righteous life – is the world to come, which is clearly *not* the world of souls but the world of resurrection.

In my opinion, there is something misleading in the statement that it was ”determined” that a certain book would be included in the canon. It is more accurate to describe it as *recognized*, *perceived*, or *known* among the observant that a certain book was written in the spirit of prophecy, and this perception later led, at the time of the signing of the Tanakh, to the social determination that these books were included in the canon.

David,

As for how I know that this is about resurrection in the literal sense – the argument requires a long analysis so forgive me for refraining – perhaps I will write about it at some point.

You can get an impression of the authority of the Bible from the fact that it was written during a time when God's providence over the people of Israel was evident when prophets walked among us, and they are, according to tradition, among those who gave a seal of approval that no more books would be added from here on out. In any case, it was written primarily by prophets known to the people whose prophecies were fulfilled.

I don't see how the authority of the New Testament can be based on the Tanakh - I'm not familiar with any prophecy about new books being included in the canon in the future or anything like that.

When you have a question about how to fulfill a mitzvah - you turn to tradition. Not because it is incapable of error, but because after all it records the manner in which the mitzvahs were fulfilled as far back as the Second Temple period, a period in which there were still sages and prophets who kept those mitzvahs and accepted the traditions from the First Temple, and there is no doubt that the seers of heaven observed their path and applied it. Moreover, after all, there must be a way to fulfill the commandments, and not in heaven.

Shai,

Of course. There is a purpose as stated, but it is not the world of souls but the world of resurrection – for the righteous. And it turns out that the wicked are eternally destroyed (and do not suffer eternally in the world of spirits).

Where is the resurrection of the dead in the Psalms?

I don't understand how you concluded from ”inherit the earth” that this is the world of resurrection? And again, the descriptions of the sages are full of descriptions of the world of souls and are not allegorical legends because there are laws that were passed in this way.

Sheol is the Canaanite world of the dead. If you believe that the Bible meant the grave, then why did you use the word Sheol? After all, the context of Sheol as perceived then (and even today for those who are familiar with the beliefs of the ancient East) is a hidden world of the dead and existence there is like the existence of shadows.

I do not conclude from the pagan world regarding the Torah, but when there is an explicit word with a certain meaning, it is likely that this is the intention. After all, everywhere else the Torah opposed pagan concepts, it said so explicitly and did not use its own world of concepts.

And again, from the verse in Ecclesiastes “… The dead have no reward, for their memory is lost” It can also be concluded that there is no resurrection of the dead at all.

Regarding the woman of the house of the dead, if the Bible believed that there is no existence after death, why did it mention the story? Why didn't it come out against this belief? (The fact that it forbade asking the dead does not mean that it is impossible, or that this belief is not correct in its opinion). In other places, the Bible comes out strongly against pagan beliefs.
In my opinion, the story shows that at least this belief existed among the people, and not only the ignorant and the people of the lands, but also among the wise men of that period.

The books of Enoch and Maccabees were also rejected because of the beliefs that were written there that contradicted the wisdom of the sages. These books were important books among the men, but that is another matter.
The existence of oral tradition is what determined what would be included in the canon and what would not. It actually gives validity to the Holy Scriptures, as I noted in the previous responses.
Without tradition, no one would accept the Bible as a source of faith.
Tradition sometimes even contradicts the literal interpretations of the Bible.
As some commenters responded to you when they asked you how you keep certain commandments when the literal interpretation of the Bible says something completely different? If I understand correctly, you advocate the concept of “sola scriptura” similar to Protestants, but you keep commandments according to the tradition of the Sages, and I really wonder how you deal with this dissonance? .

I am also interested in knowing where you get the correctness of the Scriptures from? In my opinion, there must be an ancient tradition that accepts the correctness of the Scriptures (or other evidence for their correctness, but I do not know of any).

Regarding the resurrection in the Book of Daniel, it seems from the plain text that the wicked will also be resurrected but will be condemned to eternal damnation. According to Chazal, it also seems that they will be resurrected to receive their punishment, although there are several methods regarding who will be resurrected and why.

By the way, if the soul perishes after death, how is resurrection possible? After all, the metaphysical self no longer exists.

Copenhagen, from Psalms 9:9, it is simply that there is a resurrection, you want to say that it is the resurrection of the dead, well, that's right; also, in my opinion, with the grave, it fits very well in the verses;
And the raising of the dead is a very clear statement that if Saul thought that Samuel would be there, it means that there is an existence for the soul or the soul of the righteous.
The same can be said about Enoch or Elijah. But of course, the gates of sermons were not closed.

Regarding the external books, the Sages also forbade reading them, not only did they not include them in the canon. In other words, the Sages did determine the canon and the theology and beliefs, and determined what would be considered legitimate and what would not. Again, the fact that there was an ancient tradition actually strengthens my words. After all, the Sages did not determine this arbitrarily. And this is my argument, that tradition is what qualifies the scriptures and not vice versa.

From several places it is seen that the relationship between the poet and the soul is so deep that somehow it will not be ended forever by death.

Here are some examples:

For you will not leave my soul to see decay; you will not allow your faithful one to see corruption. It should be noted that all the readings are clear that the soul simply means the living body, certainly not a soul without a body, as is evident from the present context. (16:10)

In chapter 17 the poet asks the soul to May he protect him from the attacks of the wicked: Arise, O LORD, and let his face be broken, O LORD, from the dead, O LORD, from the hand of men, O LORD, from the hand of men, from the dead, from the rust of their hands, from the living,
– Of those whose portion and reward is this present world, and whose belly is filled with your treasure, their children shall be satisfied, and their rest shall be given to their oppressors, – Those whose treasures fill the belly and the fortune of their heirs at this time.

On the other hand, – I will hold on to your face in righteousness, I will swear by your presence, your nearness.

In chapter 4, the poet points out that in the natural state, both the rich and the poor are extinct, and no one can redeem his brother, that he can give a ransom for his life. (A brother cannot be redeemed, no one can give to God a ransom for him. And the ransom of a soul is precious) Therefore: And he is lost forever – He is lost forever. The blood of his soul's redemption is too precious to bring him to the state of: I live forever and ever, I will not see corruption. Without special intervention from God, eternal damnation is inevitable.

In contrast to them, only God will redeem my soul from the hand of Sheol, for he will take me away. Although the wicked perish in Sheol like the beasts (for in death there is no remembrance of you, in Sheol, who will acknowledge you?) – But God himself will take care to redeem the righteous.

You have shown me many troubles and evils – You will restore my life and bring me up from the depths of the earth. (Ezekiel 3:20) – with the emphasis that this will happen again – that is, after death.

Chapter 33 deals with the eternal destruction of the wicked – which is opposite to the fate of the righteous (vv. 23-25). It should be noted that it is not possible to interpret the intention that he will die before his time – something that is denied in verse 4.

And also: A fool does not know, and a fool does not understand this. When the wicked flourish like grass, all the workers of iniquity spring up, to their destruction forever (2:2). This is in contrast to the righteous, who do not necessarily flourish in the present time, since they are not destined for destruction forever.

Kobi,

“Inherit the Land” simply speaks of life on Earth, not in the world of souls. The fact that the righteous will inherit the Land of Chazal was received from the Scriptures, for example, Daniel 7:18.

I will leave the question of why the Bible used one terminology and not another to speculation. What is important is that it explicitly tells you several times that there is no consciousness, thought, will or deed in Sheol.

Regarding Ecclesiastes, it correctly expresses the view that the natural state of the dead is that no trace of them remains. The resurrection of the dead is a special selective act of providence (see the verses from the Psalms that I cited above that interpret this).

Many times the scripture tells a story as if in its entirety and lets the reader grapple with what theological meanings can be deduced from its details, if any. (For example, “We made man in our image, after our likeness”).

I don't know how you got to my words about ”sola scriptura”. What I claimed is that historically the Bible was accepted among the God-fearing because it was known as the word of ’. Not that it was arbitrarily decided that it was the word of ’ and therefore it became the word of ’ (which is ontologically absurd, and not historically correct). Later it was established as canon, because they realized that prophecy had left the people and decided that from now on no more books would be added.

Daniel says that ”many” will rise. From this I learned that there will be ordinary wicked who will not rise (and many other scriptures) as well as extraordinary wicked who will rise to receive punishment for the world, and thus the righteousness of ’ See for all, as Isaiah says: And they shall go out and look upon the dead bodies of the men that have transgressed against me: for their plague shall not die, and their sin shall not be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

From the principle of the identity of the indivisible, it is possible to say that your particular ’I’ can only exist as a result of the union of a particular body with a soul – as described in the book of Genesis. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. If we imagine an ego without a body, there is nothing that distinguishes it from other egos.

In Psalms 9, God redeems him from the grave and it is clear from the comparison to the wicked that without him he would not exist - it is certainly understandable if we are talking about the resurrection of the dead, but it does not reconcile with the world of souls in any way.

The sages forbade external books, but even without the prohibition they were not included in the historical canon of the people of the Great Knesset and were not accepted by all the God-fearing people like him.

“Inherit the land” can also be understood as dominion over the land or as a reward in this world. The way of the wicked will perish and justice and divine decree will prevail. But the truth is that in order to understand the Bible, one must also study the language, culture, and context of the ancient Near East, whose people the Bible addresses.

By the way, I remember once when they tried to prove existence after death in this way, after a little research I realized that the verses refer to the burial ritual and way of the ancient Near East.

Regarding your view that I concluded as ”sula scriptura” it is because you follow the plain meaning of the Scriptures and ignore the sage tradition that believes otherwise. I am not necessarily saying that your words are wrong, but I do not understand why you reject tradition in certain matters and accept it in other places (observance of the commandments).

I still do not understand how you determine that the Scriptures are the word of God? After all, anyone can write a book and say that it is the word of God, and there are thousands of sects and religions that claim this.
In my opinion and my claim is that tradition is what gives validity to the Scriptures, because without it they are just books like Maccabees, Enoch, Jubilees, the Gospels, the Revelation of John, etc.

The tradition that has passed down through the generations is what qualifies the Scriptures. The same tradition that comes from Sinai and claims that the Torah was given there, the one that qualified the sermons given at Sinai (which are not mentioned at all in the Scriptures), the one that gives authority to the sages to interpret in every generation (in the Bible, authority is for the priests and prophets, and even there it is very limited), and it is the same tradition that interpreted the Scriptures (which can be interpreted in hundreds and thousands of different ways, as the Christians, the Essenes, the Sadducees, and other sects that operated in the past will testify to), and the same tradition that believes that a metaphysical world of souls exists.

I have never claimed that the Tanakh was determined arbitrarily, but that there was a tradition that passed and that is what gave the scriptures their validity. After all, what other reason is there to believe that the Tanakh is true and must be followed? If I am not mistaken, Rabbi Michi also believed this in one of the questions asked here, and even claimed that there is no meaning to studying the Tanakh without tradition because it can be interpreted in several ways and what is important is tradition.
He even gave examples of contradictions between the scriptures and the words of Chazal in the remote city, a wayward son and a teacher, and even regarding laws given at Sinai that are not mentioned in the scriptures.

And again, I don't understand how you accept the words of the sages that contradict explicit verses? Something that those who sanctified the Holy Scriptures alone rejected. Starting with the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Karaites, and even the Ethiopians (who also have a tradition, albeit a much thinner one).

Again, the fact that the Scriptures were predetermined actually strengthens my claim that there was a tradition that passed down and not that the sages determined it arbitrarily.

In my opinion, if the Bible opposed the belief in the soul's remains, it would have explicitly opposed it, just as it opposed dozens and hundreds of pagan beliefs that it considered wrong.
He did not just use Saul's terminology.
It was not for nothing that the prophet did not oppose the belief in the resurrection, and it was not for nothing that the writer omitted or treated the story negatively.

Regarding your words about the soul, I agree. “Soul” in the Bible means “life” but the term spirit speaks of a metaphysical being in my opinion. Note that in the story of the deceased, Saul's “spirit” ascends, and so in ”and the soul will return to God who gave it”.

“For you will not leave my soul to Saul” This is a request/wish not to die a physical death. Not for the future resurrection of the dead. At least that's how I understand it.

I also understand all the other examples that speak of physical death and not of the end of days. Except in ”Asher showed me and Go” where it may be understood as the resurrection of the dead.
I remember when I studied the Book of Psalms for high school, I never saw them interpret things as the resurrection of the dead, so things can be interpreted in several ways. It may be talking about the resurrection, but I was not convinced of that.

I don't understand why we need to trace the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews. The question of whether there is an afterlife is a factual question.
Even if certain figures in the Bible did not believe in the survival of the soul, this does not mean that it does not exist. Especially when you bring evidence from a book like the Psalms, which was written at most under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not actual prophetic words, and even the name of the prophet does not usually receive answers to such questions.

Similarly, the fact that certain figures in the Bible believed in the existence of Sheol and ascension does not mean that it is necessarily true.

So even if the afterlife is the resurrection of the dead, this does not mean that there is no world of souls or a metaphysical existence.

I don't understand. If there is no soul residue, how is the person who is resurrected the same person? After all, his body was broken down and rebuilt. It is not even made of the same material it was made of before he died, and it is even possible that the material it was made of reincarnated and is found in another person.
It is no longer the same person. In order for a person to be resurrected, he must have an individual metaphysical self.
It is not enough to be just an “ideal” form and certainly not to be devoid of metaphysical existence.