Do we taste death when we die?

The gospels look pretty straightforward to me. If Jesus didn't "say" something, then the authors were unpaid geniuses.
And, I’m guessing that must hold too for the authors of the material records the gospels writers used. Chinese whispers come to mind.
 
Which is kind ironic, since that is essentially an acknowledgement that "God is all in your head"; i.e. everything attributable to God is actually doable on your own, without resort to any extant entity.
God is in your heart.

My mother always says, and I think she is right. The heart isn't just a pump. The Egyptians knew this. We just disregard ancient wisdom for scientific progress.
 
Ecclesiastes 9:5 is actually in agreement with neuroscience-based views that death results in the termination of consciousness: "...but the dead know nothing..."
_

I'm thinking about death itself. The "moment" you die. Did it used to be a different experience before Jesus came?

If the experience has always been this way then what was Jesus on about?

Matthew 16:28

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Actually, it's got me thinking. If there were witnesses to Jesus' Ascension then that would settle it.

What do you think?
 
And, I’m guessing that must hold too for the authors of the material records the gospels writers used. Chinese whispers come to mind.
The same can be said for all ancient texts obviously, that's why the bible is called Holy. If you don't believe it's Holy then it will never make sense.
 
The same can be said for all ancient texts obviously, that's why the bible is called Holy. If you don't believe it's Holy then it will never make sense.
Are you saying the bible is called holy because the records used by the bible's authors have to be 'believed' no matter what?
What leads you to question if Jesus said something or not?
Are there conflicting accounts of whether Jesus might have said something or not?
The gospels look pretty straightforward to me. If Jesus didn't "say" something, then the authors were unpaid geniuses.
 
Are you saying the bible is called holy because the records used by the bible's authors have to be 'believed' no matter what?

No. It is a Holy book for Christians.
What leads you to question if Jesus said something or not?
It's not what he says, it's what he meant.
Are there conflicting accounts of whether Jesus might have said something or not?

Not in the gospels. There's problem objectively looking at the texts, misunderstandings perhaps.
 
God is in your heart.

My mother always says, and I think she is right. The heart isn't just a pump. The Egyptians knew this. We just disregard ancient wisdom for scientific progress.
That's gonna be really bad news for all those people with artificial hearts. Are they soulless zombies? What about the guy with the pig's heart?
 
Is that a bit like with Zen ,where some have said (to paraphrase possibly badly) that
"you don't need to attain "enlightenment " you just have to realize you are already there"?

Might there have been a link btw the original Christianity and Eastern mysticism? [...]

I guess it can be said that some of those today want to retrospectively project cross-cultural fertilization into the passage. Chanced upon this while pursuing a completely different item:

Paramahansa Yogananda's commentary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming#Paramahansa_Yogananda's_commentary

Yogananda wrote that the true Second Coming is the resurrection within you of the Infinite Christ Consciousness. Also stated in the Book of Luke – "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)
_
 
I'm thinking about death itself. The "moment" you die. Did it used to be a different experience before Jesus came?

If the experience has always been this way then what was Jesus on about?

I don't consider it as dealing with the experience of death or its qualities "at the moment". The passage is simply referring to what "seems" to have been mentioned before that, the Second Coming. With respect to that event happening soon, before those immediately present would grow old and die.

To wit: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done."

Which accordingly takes us back to the issue of when the Kingdom of God (KoG) was supposed to have been established -- circa two thousand years ago or much later? But, of course, the apologists have a response for that which is got into below...

Matthew 16:28

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Actually, it's got me thinking. If there were witnesses to Jesus' Ascension then that would settle it.

What do you think?

Well, you're headed in the direction that the defenders go, albeit further down the pike.

A similar statement is made in Luke 9:27: "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Apologists contend that the phrase "they see the kingdom of God" was instead referring not to the Second Coming and aftermath, but to the Transfiguration of Christ which occurred 8 days later (because that is what is addressed in the next set of verses in Luke).

Given all the "radiant glory", I guess that MIGHT be construed as a prelude to or glimpse of what the future return of JC (after the ascension) and the establishment of KoG would be like.

Again, the ambiguous nature of the writing permits salvage options like that.
 
Last edited:
I don't consider it as dealing with the experience of death or its qualities "at the moment". The passage is simply referring to what was mentioned before that, the Second Coming. With respect to it happening soon, before those immediately present would grow old and die.

Yep, questioning the actual taste element might be getting too literal, but it's fun exploring.

A similar statement is made in Luke 9:27. Apologists contend that the phrase "they see the kingdom of God" was instead referring not to the Second Coming, but to the Transfiguration of Christ which occurred 8 days later (because that is what is addressed in the next set of verses in Luke).

That actually makes sense.

Given all the "radiant glory", I guess that MIGHT be construed as a prelude to what the future return of JC (after the ascension) and the establishment of KoG would be like.

Definitely.

Again, the ambiguous nature of the writing permits salvage options like that.
_

That's why it's fun to discuss!
 
I guess it can be said that some of those today want to retrospectively project cross-cultural fertilization into the passage. Chanced upon this while pursuing a completely different item:

Paramahansa Yogananda's commentary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming#Paramahansa_Yogananda's_commentary

Yogananda wrote that the true Second Coming is the resurrection within you of the Infinite Christ Consciousness. Also stated in the Book of Luke – "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)
_
Well found.
More prosaicly but perhaps pertinently,I (and,I assume countless others) have wondered what it would be like to physically get inside another person's (or animal's) thought processes.

Even a little.

I amuse myself sometimes trying to get inside the mind of our pet dog.

First you have to deduct all the thoughts you are sure that they cannot have .


Seems like the Yogi you have referenced in that wikipedia page has imagined the same kind of a thing with his or her idea of what Jesus was,although they would probably claim some kind of direct connection .

An illusion imo .
 
I amuse myself sometimes trying to get inside the mind of our pet dog.
Have you read Nagel's "What is the Like to be a Bat?"

It's a seminal work about the qualia of critters different from us. For example, can we even conceive of the experience of navigating and hunting by sonar.
 
davewhite04:
Yes please, it might be science that has the answer.
You asked:
So James, what happens when you die? Is death itself experienced somehow? or has it lost its sting..
Science says that when you die, your body stops working in various ways. The way that medicine defines death these days concentrates on brain death. That is, you're dead when your brain stops working. That can happen for various reasons, such as oxygen deprivation or a hemorrhage.

However, I think what you really want to know is: what happens to your consciousness after you die. You're probably wondering if it goes on existing in some form after death. Here's what science says about that: there's no evidence that human consciousness can exist without a working human brain. Therefore, the most sensible assumption to make for now is that consciousness does not persist after death. Of course, it is conceivable that somebody might, one day, discover some evidence to show that consciousness can exist without a working brain. If that ever happens, then science will adjust to accommodate the new findings, like it always does.

You also asked if death is experienced. I don't understand what you want to know. Are you asking me what it feels like to die? Clearly, I am not dead and I have not previously died, so I don't know. Similarly, there are no people who have suffered brain death and who have come back to tell the tale. So, it's hard to know. On the other hand, lots of people know what it is like to watch somebody else die, so we can get some idea of what the experience might be like from those observations. The experience seems to vary, depending on the proximate cause of death.

You also ask: has death lost its sting. That doesn't sound like a science question.

Also: you previously said you wanted my personal opinions, but then you changed and asked about the scientific consensus instead. Bear in mind that I don't speak for Science, and Science doesn't necessarily speak for me.
 
Last edited:
However, I think what you really want to know is: what happens to your consciousness after you die. You're probably wondering if it goes on existing in some form after death. Here's what science says about that: there's no evidence that human consciousness can exist without a working human brain. Therefore, the most sensible assumption to make for now is that consciousness does not persist after death. Of course, it is conceivable that somebody might, one day, discover some evidence to show that consciousness can exist without a working brain. If that ever happens, then science will adjust to accommodate the new findings, like it always does.

Actually I'm more interested in sciences answers about the trauma of you final breath. But it seems we won't know that until we experience it.
You also ask: has death lost its sting. That doesn't sound like a science question.

I think your right, it was an expression used in the text.

Also: you previously said you wanted my personal opinions, but then you changed and asked about the scientific consensus instead. Bear in mind that I don't speak for Science, and Science doesn't necessarily speak for me.

With you being a science guy James, I assumed science based opinions, pardon my assumption.
 
Actually I'm more interested in sciences answers about the trauma of you final breath. But it seems we won't know that until we experience it.
Must that be traumatic? Lots of people die peacefully in their sleep, you know.
 
Must that be traumatic? Lots of people die peacefully in their sleep, you know.
We can't say for sure as all evidence is collected by those who are alive.

I think there are always traumas (mental or physical) associated with the process of dying (which starts when we are born) but I would guess that the final moments ,(even in a traumatic death) are likely to be different to those processes which ,to my mind revolve around physical pain and the mental anguish of loss.

Some people whom I respect say they have no fear of dying (Georges Brassens) ,others say the prospect kills all enjoyment for what is left (Nuala o'Fuolain)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuala_O'Faolain

Others ,as an aside say that death is the great leveler and that we are all equal in the grave.
 
...the trauma of you final breath.
I'm not sure the word 'trauma' applies to an event that is not recorded in the memory or recalled later (since you're dead)

But it seems we won't know that until we experience it.
Well, we still won't know, will we? We'll be dead. We won't have processed those final moments.

But there's a hint, perhaps, left for the living. That last breath seems to be almost universally restful, if not peaceful. Not a lot of people using their last breath to croak out 'The shadows! They're pulling me down!'
 
Must that be traumatic? Lots of people die peacefully in their sleep, you know.
It's a mystery I guess.

I had an experience where I was lying in bed alone, then I just lifted out of my body and walked through my apartment hall bodyless. I walked through my front door and in the communal landing there we dozens of ghost like figures waving daggers who were completely unaware of my presence. I walked(it seemed that way) back to my body on the bed that was lifeless and got back in. I immediately regretted my decision because my body just didn't move at all, it had stopped functioning. My soul was stuck in what seemed like a dead body. I was panicking because I couldn't talk, shout for help nothing. I shouted out for Jesus in my soul mind, nothing, then I shouted out God. A few moments later, my left arm started to move, then everything kicked in, what a relief it was. Pretty bad experience in all.

I thought I'd share the closest I've come to death. Leaving the body is painless, but being stuck in a none responsive body is fear itself.
 
If you are expecting to die because of an illness or major injury, how would you know the exact moment of your death. Maybe a continuous repeating in the mind of something such as… I’m I dead yet, which stops when you are dead?
And, if you die in your sleep, you don’t even get to ask that question at all???
 
Last edited:
Back
Top