Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    N.T. Wright and Oscar Cullmann demonstrate that biblical ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Bible should not be considered proof for immortality of the soul

    N.T. Wright and Oscar Cullmann demonstrate that biblical resurrection hope presupposes the soul is NOT naturally immortal and requires divine re-creation.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Connections

    1 linked claim · 2 topics

    Eternal Conscious Torment1 linkedProof of definition segments1 linked
    The Bible should not be considered proof for immortality of the soul

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.

    Related

    The Bible should not be considered proof for immortality of the soul

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective