Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?

[samuel]

Removed

 

[guibox]

Hello.

I do believe that the soul is eternal. I believe this is made evident in the scriptures.

About the word "nephesh":

While it is true that in the OT this word can be used in reference to a living being (Gen. 2:7), it is not therefore necessarily limited to this particular use. Besides, Genesis 2:7 only tells us what a man is, not what he is not. Ron Rhodes, in his book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" comments, "...while Genesis 2:7 affirms that man is a living being, it does not deny in any way that man has an immaterial nature."

That is incorrect. 'nephesh' means 'living being' or 'life'. Man is nephesh he doesn't just have it. Man's intellect, emotion, reasoning and cogitation exists because God's breath made Him a functioning 'nephesh'. When man dies, this 'nephesh' dies with Him. It is not separate from man but is a complete, wholistic part of man. The Hebrews did not have the view of the 'soul'. Dualism was a Greek concept, not a Hebrew one.

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sins, it shall die..."

This verse makes no explicit distinction about whether it is speaking to the soul as a living being or to the immaterial nature within a man.

It is. More modern translations say, 'it is the man who sins who shall die'. The 'soul' was not a separate part of man but the man itself. Apparently you didn't read mine and Soma's posts on these things. Even living and dead beasts are called 'souls'.

Psalm 146:4 - "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish."

When a man dies he ceases to breathe, his body decays and becomes part of the earth, and his consciousness, just like his body, ceases to be exerted upon a temporal plane. This verse doesn't say that the soul and body are one, however; only that a man's thoughts "perish" at the same time as the decease of the body.

And you are making a gratuitous assumption that the 'thoughts perishing' apply to the body and not the soul. Rather the thoughts are that intellectual part of man that makes man a living soul. Man did not have emotion, feeling or thought on his own. This only occured when he became a living functioning being. Therefore, when one ceases to exist, so does the other.

What "perish" may mean is not clearly spelled out in this verse. From what other verses in scripture say, it may not mean "the loss of being" as one might suppose. Matthew 10:28, for instance, says, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." This verse clearly indicates that it is possible to kill the body without killing the soul. Ron Rhodes comments, "What Jesus is saying (in Matthew 10:28), then, is this: 'There is something about you which those who kill you [in your physical being] cannot touch! That something is that aspect of man which continues after the body has been lowered into the grave."

When you understand that the word 'soul' is translated as 'life' we see that man cannot indeed kill our 'life' only our body. There is another life beyond this one that man cannot touch. The part that truly matters which is why we are told in this verse to 'Fear Him'. God could allow us to remain in the grave for eternity by not infusing us with His breath again. Our soul would be truly dead. Acts 2:34 - "For thou wilt not leave my psuche (nephesh) in Hades (Sheol - grave)" Christ was resurrected to LIFE. He didn't remain in the tomb.

There is no doubt this is a very difficult subject. It even drove me back to some of my theological studies. There is no doubt that the soul is immortal as God is immortal since it came from God.

God's breath came from man, not man's soul. God's breath made man a whole living being. Man became a soul, he wasn't given one.

But man has body, soul, and spirit. The confusion derives from the part each plays in the whole of man. The soul is life, and is a part of the body, the spirit is the personality, and conscience, and effectively is the part we recognize as the man.

No it's not. The confusion derives from you not understanding the nature of man as the Hebrews saw it and how the Bible uses these terms. The 'spirit' the 'ruach', or the 'wind' or 'breath'. This term is what is used to describe the nature of man. It is the life giving power given by God to make man a 'soul'. When man dies, this breath goes back to God. However, you cannot say that this 'breath' is a thinking, cogitating, aware part of man that lives on in the heavens. It is not and the Bible doesn't support it.

At death the soul returns to God who gave it. The body to dust, and the spirit would then be the part that either goes to paradise or hell.

And you got this from?...Dante's Inferno? The 'soul who sins shall die' and the 'spirit goes back to God who gave it'. Man's thoughts perish (his soul dies) and he remains in the tomb unconscious (Sheol/Hades) where he awaits the resurrection call to wake him up to eternal life (1 Corinthians 15). It is creation anew as death was creation in reverse.

 

[samuel]

Removed

 

[Free]

I think that dualism makes the most sense philsophically and theologically.

I find that those who use the Bible to support non-dualism tend to have a far too narrow grasp on the meaning of "soul" as it is used throughout the Bible, and those who propose a psychological explanation ("it's all in the brain") usually haven't brought their arguments to their logical conclusions.

My 2 cents.

 

[aiki]

Hello, again.

Before I get sidetracked answering guibox's post, I'm gonna' write a few more things about the scriptural basis for the idea of an immortal soul.

Revelations 6:9, 10 - "And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (nasb - italics added)

Ron Rhodes, writes, " In this passage it is impossible for "souls" to refer to living beings, for then the text would read, 'I saw underneath the altar the living beings of those who had been slain.' Notice that the souls exist and are conscious despite the fact that they had been physically slain. How do we know they are conscious? Scripture says that they 'cried out' to God and are spoken to in turn. That which is unconscious cannot cry out or be spoken to.

Luke 23:46 - " Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into Your Hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last."

The word "spirit" in this verse is "pneuma" which may mean "wind", "breath", "life-spirit", "soul", "the spirit as part of the human personality", "the spirit of God", "the spirit of Christ", and "the Holy Spirit."

Many of the above meanings are disqualified as being appropriate for Luke 23:46. It doesn't make sense for Jesus to commit his "wind" or his "breath" to the Father. Nor does it make sense that Jesus is committing "the Holy Spirit" or "the spirit of God" to the Father. Really, only the meanings "soul" or "spirit as part of the human personality" make any sense in the context of this verse. Ron Rhodes points out, "It seems clear from a plain reading of the passage that Jesus is committing His human immaterial soul or spirit to the Father."

Acts 7:59 - "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'"

If "spirit" in this verse simply means "life-force" it makes no sense for Stephen to commit it to Jesus; for at the moment of his death it would cease to exist. Obviously, Stephen is asking Jesus to receive that part of his self that would survive the death of his physical body.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 - "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel. and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord." (nasb)

Cult expert Walter Martin writes,

"Verse 14 in this passage indicates that Paul, while using the metaphor sleep to describe physical death, clearly understood that when Jesus comes again, He will bring with (Gr: sun) Him those whose bodies are "sleeping". To be more explicit, the souls and spirits of those who are now with Christ in glory (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:22-23) will be reunited with their resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15); that is, they will be clothed with immortality, incorruptibility, and exemption from physical decay. The Greek word sun indicates that they will be in a 'side by side' position with Christ, and their physical bodies that are 'sleeping' will in that instant be raised to immortality and reunited with their spirits."

Luke 20:38 - "He [God] is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him." (nasb)

IN this verse Jesus is speaking of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all of whom were a long time dead. BUt Jesus' words in the above verse clearly state that all three are living at the present moment, even though they died physically many years ago. More than this, the phrase, "all live to Him" is stated in the present tense and indicates that all who have died physically, and not the patriarchs only, are yet alive.

Philippians 1:21-23 - "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me, Yet what shall I choose?...I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far."

So, how does Paul gain from dying if his death means non-existence? The "gain" of which Paul is speaking is being in the presence of Christ, but he could not enjoy such "gain" if he ceased to exist. And Paul is not speaking of a future resurrection here. The grammar of the Greek language in this verse prohibits such a reading. The aorist infinitive "to depart" is linked with the present infinitive "to be with Christ" by a single article. The infinitives thus belong together. What Paul is saying, then, is that departing the body means being with Christ the very next moment.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 - "therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord -- for we walk by faith, not by sight -- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." (nasb)

The last part of the above passage contains two aorist infinitives: "absent from the body" and "at home with the Lord". Such aorists indicate a "once-for-all" circumstance. And this once-for-all circumstance is death, which, as the passage indicates, is "an immediate transition from being at home in the body to being away from home as to the body." (R. Rhodes) The meaning of these verses is, therefore, that the moment a Christian dies he or she is immediately in the presence of Christ. And it is obvious that this will not be in the physical body, which has just died.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Featherbop]

Do you believe in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul?

No. I find many problems with this doctrine.

First, if one chooses to use the Bible to determine this, then there is too much that indicates soul mortality. Whether it be God forming man from the ground, dead people knowing nothing, christians not being allowed to try to contact the dead, the penalty of sin, or the wicked being burned away, etc, there is much against this kind of immortality, and ironically many christians adhere to this doctrine one way or the other.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Is everyone voting?

There are only two others that said no?

 

[Featherbop]

Is everyone voting?

There are only two others that said no?

I haven't yet. I'll vote in just a second.

[Edit]-Done.

 

[guibox]

Hello, again.

Before I get sidetracked answering guibox's post, I'm gonna' write a few more things about the scriptural basis for the idea of an immortal soul.

Revelations 6:9, 10 - "And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (nasb - italics added)

Ron Rhodes, writes, " In this passage it is impossible for "souls" to refer to living beings, for then the text would read, 'I saw underneath the altar the living beings of those who had been slain.' Notice that the souls exist and are conscious despite the fact that they had been physically slain. How do we know they are conscious? Scripture says that they 'cried out' to God and are spoken to in turn. That which is unconscious cannot cry out or be spoken to.

What is ignored is the 'under the altar' reference and the symbolic nature of the passage. Are you to believe that there are millions of 'disembodied souls' crammed under some literal altar? Notice the parallel to Abel's blood crying out from the ground. In the OT, the life force was considered contained in the blood. When an animal was sacrificed on the altar, it's blood ran underneath. The symbolism is of those martyred for God crying out for vengeance. Not immortal substances frolicking under an altar.

Luke 23:46 - " Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into Your Hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last."

The word "spirit" in this verse is "pneuma" which may mean "wind", "breath", "life-spirit", "soul", "the spirit as part of the human personality", "the spirit of God", "the spirit of Christ", and "the Holy Spirit."

Many of the above meanings are disqualified as being appropriate for Luke 23:46. It doesn't make sense for Jesus to commit his "wind" or his "breath" to the Father. Nor does it make sense that Jesus is committing "the Holy Spirit" or "the spirit of God" to the Father. Really, only the meanings "soul" or "spirit as part of the human personality" make any sense in the context of this verse. Ron Rhodes points out, "It seems clear from a plain reading of the passage that Jesus is committing His human immaterial soul or spirit to the Father."
Acts 7:59 - "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'"

If "spirit" in this verse simply means "life-force" it makes no sense for Stephen to commit it to Jesus; for at the moment of his death it would cease to exist. Obviously, Stephen is asking Jesus to receive that part of his self that would survive the death of his physical body.

The spirit was not the soul and you cannot use them interchangeably. The spirit is the breath that was given to man at creation. Dying is that process in reverse. It may sound redundant but that is how it is used. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away". All power and life was given by God. All Christ and Stephen were doing was acknowledging that and giving that power back to God.

Pretty strange that Christ's essence went to heaven when He directly told Mary that he had not yet ascended to the heavens.

Notice that it also says about Stephen after saying this, "and then he fell asleep". As much as immortal soul supporters try to twist this around, it means just that. After the power of life leaves, he loses consciousness and awaits the resurrection.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 - " For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. (nasb)

Cult expert Walter Martin writes,

"Verse 14 in this passage indicates that Paul, while using the metaphor sleep to describe physical death, clearly understood that when Jesus comes again, He will bring with (Gr: sun) Him those whose bodies are "sleeping". To be more explicit, the souls and spirits of those who are now with Christ in glory (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:22-23) will be reunited with their resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15); that is, they will be clothed with immortality, incorruptibility, and exemption from physical decay. The Greek word sun indicates that they will be in a 'side by side' position with Christ, and their physical bodies that are 'sleeping' will in that instant be raised to immortality and reunited with their spirits."

Martin is allowing his bias of the immortality of the soul interpret the verse as most often do. It is not saying that at all. Rather the emphasis is that "will God bring with Him" means that the dead will be raised as Christ was. "For IF we believe that Jesus DIED and ROSE again...EVEN SO...them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him". Even the Message Bible which is as paraphrased as it gets adheres to this meaning. It is redundant and contradictory to say 'Those that sleep in Jesus" and at the same time say they are coming to earth.

There is no soul/body dichotomy in the Bible. To get around the clear teaching of scripture that we await the resurrection in our graves and do not go to heaven, the immortal soul supporter tries to explain the gross discrepencies by appealing to 'it is only talking about the body and no the soul". This is not a biblical usage to explain such things, rather it is a preconceived notion (that luckily explains everything away) which is infused into the texts.

A clear and thorough reading of 1 Corinthians 15 shows that the whole of man was considered the entity and all talk of resurrection and life is applicable to the whole man and not just the body.

I will address the other ambiguous texts given later.

 

[Soma-Sight]

guibox,

Good posts man!

You defend the Truth well.

 

[Domeroth]

Something Soma said earlier confuses me.

So God lied to Adam when He said that he would die as a result of his sin?

Also it would appear that sinners are granted eternal life for their sins?

Interesting. I think I missed that part.

It was to my understanding that Adam lived to be 900 something anyway. Maybe man was immortal in the beginning? God took away the immortality? God told him, "You will die, as a result of sin" speaking of his physical body?

It's also to my understanding that sinners spend eternity in 'Hell'.

Either way, I think this thread, and it's original question, has been blown way out of proportion.

To top it all off, I'm only more confused.

 

[guibox]

Something Soma said earlier confuses me.

So God lied to Adam when He said that he would die as a result of his sin? Also it would appear that sinners are granted eternal life for their sins? Interesting. I think I missed that part.

It was to my understanding that Adam lived to be 900 something anyway. Maybe man was immortal in the beginning? God took away the immortality? God told him, "You will die, as a result of sin" speaking of his physical body?

The Bible says 'the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life'. When man sinned, he was separated from God and was condemned to die, despite the longevity of his earthly life. Here is where the 'talking about the body and not the soul' argument breaks down. First of all, the OT and Hebrew belief doesn't support dualism, second, if my true essence (my thinking, emotion etc) survives death then man has truly not 'died' as the death of the body is redundant.

Also, if the gift of God is the exact opposite of death, then until we have truly accepted that gift, we will die completely. Hence, upon sinning, man lost that immortal gift.

As Soma has said, eternal life is something we 'seek' because we have lost it. 1 Corinthians 15 says that at the resurrection, immortality is given and death is conquered (vs 51-55).

Hopefully that helps clear up some confusion.

It's also to my understanding that sinners spend eternity in 'Hell'.

Again this is a disputed topic. The nature and duration of this 'hell' and in what form man experiences is not as clear cut and dried as many elitists would like to think.

 

[Domeroth]

So what then, if the soul 'dies'? Darkness? Nothingness?

If you truly cease to be...

Most people tend to look to some kind of afterlife, to give them something to look forward to, instead of just death. Focusing on the end alone, is by far depressing. I would think that if I ever ceased to exist, It might be worse.

Then again, if you don't exist... who cares anyway? You don't. Because you are nothing, null, void, a memory at best.

I guess I was just hoping there was more to it.

 

[guibox]

So what then, if the soul 'dies'? Darkness? Nothingness?

If you truly cease to be...

Most people tend to look to some kind of afterlife, to give them something to look forward to, instead of just death. Focusing on the end alone, is by far depressing. I would think that if I ever ceased to exist, It might be worse.

Then again, if you don't exist... who cares anyway? You don't. Because you are nothing, null, void, a memory at best.

I guess I was just hoping there was more to it.

There is more to it, thank God! Our whole person will be made whole again and eternal life will be granted. I encourage you to read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. It is definite proof and hope of immortality at the resurrection and not at death.

 

[Domeroth]

Ok, so as to my understanding of it...

If you believe in nothing, you become nothing.

If you follow satan, you join him in hell? (still not certain about this one)

If you follow Jesus, you join him in heavin?

 

[guibox]

Even if you believed that the righteous go to heaven at death, you cannot argue that the wicked have an immortal soul. The Bible makes it plain that eternal life is only for the righteous. This clear teaching flies in the face that man has an eternal soul that survives death. The Bible just doesn't teach it, folks.

To avoid this contradiction, the immortal soul supporter says that the wicked do have 'life' just not the same 'life' as the righteous. This then taints the plain teaching of the words 'perish' and 'destroy' used to describe the fate of wicked man. "Oh they don't really mean that, it means to 'ruin' yadayada."

All of this starts with the preconceived notion that the 'soul' is immortal. This cannot be proven by the scriptures, therefore you cannot interpret ambiguous bible texts as such when the whole of scripture says otherwise.

 

[guibox]

Ok, so as to my understanding of it...

If you believe in nothing, you become nothing.

If you follow satan, you join him in hell? (still not certain about this one)

If you follow Jesus, you join him in heavin?

l? (still not certain about this one)
If you follow Jesus, you join him in heavin?[/quote]

Yes and no. There is life or death. Eternal life or eternal death.

Believers will have eternal life in heaven, unbelievers will suffer the wages of sin: death, including Satan. God doesn't want anyone to suffer. If He loves His children so much that He came to die for them,\0fer the wages of sin: death, including Satan. God doesn't want anyone to suffer. If He loves His children so much that He came to die for them, do you really think that He'd want them to suffer second degree burns for trillions of years for no other reason but punishment for 70+ years of sinning.

If I believe that the soul is immortal, then I can belive that sinners will be tortured forever and ever. However, eternal life is a gift of God to the righteous. Therefore, the wicked do not have eternal life. Hence they are mortal and cannot be tortured for eternity.

How in the world can some 'disembodied' 'soul' be tormented by literal fire? The Bible makes it plain that it is the whole person and not some ethereal ghostly substance that receives rewards and punishments.

 

[Free]

I posted this earlier and I'll post it again, with a slight change:

Dualism makes the most sense philsophically and theologically.

I find that those who use the Bible to support non-dualism tend to have a far too narrow grasp on the meanings of "soul," "death," and "life" as they are used throughout the Bible, and those who propose a psychological explanation ("it's all in the brain") usually haven't brought their arguments to their logical conclusions.

 

[aiki]

guibox:

Hello.

You wrote:

The spirit was not the soul and you cannot use them interchangeably.

Says who? Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words states, "The language of Hebrews 4:12 suggests the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between the soul and the spirit, alike in their nature and in their activities. Generally, speaking the spirit is the higher, the soul the lower element. The spirit may be recognized as the life principle bestowed on man by God, the soul as the resulting life constituted in the individual, the body being the material organism animated by soul and spirit....body and spirit may be separated, soul and spirit may only be distinguished." It would seem that soul and spirit are quite alot alike.

The spirit is the breath that was given to man at creation.

What does this mean? Is spirit merely the capacity to move air in and out of one's lungs? What exactly do you mean by "breath"?

Dying is that process in reverse. It may sound redundant but that is how it is used. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away". All power and life was given by God. All Christ and Stephen were doing was acknowledging that and giving that power back to God.

So, you are saying that "breath" is a kind of animating power? If this power is from God and only on loan as you suggest, then it is not really the possession of the one who is animated by it. Of all people, Christ would fully understand this -- if it were true. But he doesn't say, "Father, into Your hands I commit Your spirit (animating power)," which would be more accurate than what he actually says: "Father into Your hands I commit my spirit." When Jesus uses the word "my" he implies ownership of that which he is committing. He is not simply giving back to God what is His. His spirit, which he is committing to God is not God's, but his own. In fact, the word "commit" means, "to place alongside, that is present; by implication to deposit (as a trust or for protection)" (Strong's Greek Dictionary). It doesn't carry the sense of "returning" as you contend, guibox, but of "depositing for safekeeping".

Why would Stephen ask God to receive his spirit if it wasn't his and was going to be taken back by God regardless? The better, and more widely accepted reading of this verse, is that Stephen is not speaking merely of God's animating power, but of his own immaterial nature, distinct from his body, which would shortly be leaving the temporal plane to be present with God. Stephen's statement is more than simply an "acknowledgement", guibox; it is a request. A request which expresses the desire that God would do as Jesus asked Him to do in Luke 23:46: receive his spirit for safekeeping.

What is ignored is the 'under the altar' reference and the symbolic nature of the passage. Are you to believe that there are millions of 'disembodied souls' crammed under some literal altar? Notice the parallel to Abel's blood crying out from the ground. In the OT, the life force was considered contained in the blood. When an animal was sacrificed on the altar, it's blood ran underneath. The symbolism is of those martyred for God crying out for vengeance. Not immortal substances frolicking under an altar.

Ah, yes, the "it's symbolic" argument. Convenient, but not consistent. First of all, where does it say that there are millions of souls "crammed under an altar"? This is your characterization, guibox, not Scripture's. Second, this passage makes absolutely no direct or indirect reference to Abel. What parallel you draw between the two passages is entirely of your own making, not Scripture's. Thirdly, if there are millions of souls "crammed under the altar" how are they going to "frolic" there as you suggest? Again, you're just imposing on the text as it suits your imagination to do so. :o :roll:

Guibox, you don't actually address the fact that the souls under the altar are speaking audibly and intelligibly to God. Your parallel to Abel and his spilled blood crying out to God breaks down at this point. What's more, it is specifically souls, not blood, who are crying out to God. Again, your parallel is not performing well as a parallel. :-?

Martin is allowing his bias of the immortality of the soul interpret the verse as most often do. It is not saying that at all. Rather the emphasis is that "will God bring with Him" means that the dead will be raised as Christ was.

Of the two of you, Walter Martin has, by far, the greater weight of scholarship to back up his interpretation. Unless, of course, you're a world-reknowned Bible scholar and teacher, guibox... :

You seem to have totally missed the point Dr. Martin made about the word "with". Christ is bringing with him the souls who will be reunited with their resurrected, glorified bodies. This means that these souls are not presently with their bodies in the grave. They are with Christ, like a child with his parent, not absorbed, through some kind of spiritual osmosis, back into God's Being.

There is no soul/body dichotomy in the Bible. To get around the clear teaching of scripture that we await the resurrection in our graves and do not go to heaven, the immortal soul supporter tries to explain the gross discrepencies by appealing to 'it is only talking about the body and no the soul". This is not a biblical usage to explain such things, rather it is a preconceived notion (that luckily explains everything away) which is infused into the texts.

Yes, well, inasmuch as this is just your opinion I have no comment to make about it. :

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[guibox]

Says who? Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words states, "The language of Hebrews 4:12 suggests the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between the soul and the spirit, alike in their nature and in their activities. Generally, speaking the spirit is the higher, the soul the lower element. The spirit may be recognized as the life principle bestowed on man by God, the soul as the resulting life constituted in the individual, the body being the material organism animated by soul and spirit....body and spirit may be separated, soul and spirit may only be distinguished." It would seem that soul and spirit are quite alot alike.

They are separate and have two different functions and words. 'soul' is 'nephesh/psuche', 'spirit is 'neshamah,ruach/pneuma' Hebrew and Greek respectively.

The spirit is the breath that was given to man at creation.

What does this mean? Is spirit merely the capacity to move air in and out of one's lungs? What exactly do you mean by "breath"?

Exactly that.

"God breathed into his nostrils the neshamah and man became a nephesh'

"God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul"

It is not the 'nephesh' that goes back to God, but the neshamah. 'Neshamah' is means and is translated as 'breath'. Nowhere is the 'neshamah' a living, cogitating, emotional part of man that can exist without the body. Therefore when the 'neshamah' goes back to God it is merely the life force that belongs to us.

Dying is that process in reverse. It may sound redundant but that is how it is used. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away". All power and life was given by God. All Christ and Stephen were doing was acknowledging that and giving that power back to God.

So, you are saying that "breath" is a kind of animating power? If this power is from God and only on loan as you suggest, then it is not really the possession of the one who is animated by it. Of all people, Christ would fully understand this -- if it were true. But he doesn't say, "Father, into Your hands I commit Your spirit (animating power)," which would be more accurate than what he actually says: "Father into Your hands I commit my spirit." When Jesus uses the word "my" he implies ownership of that which he is committing. He is not simply giving back to God what is His. His spirit, which he is committing to God is not God's, but his own. In fact, the word "commit" means, "to place alongside, that is present; by implication to deposit (as a trust or for protection)" (Strong's Greek Dictionary). It doesn't carry the sense of "returning" as you contend, guibox, but of "depositing for safekeeping".

Man didn't become a living person until that breath was breathed into him. You come to your own conclusions. Everything we have is both ours and God's. Your argument that both Christ and Stephen would have said, 'Into thy hands I commit YOUR spirit' is weak. They were the same thing because what we have is given by God and ultimately belongs to Him anyway. Look at how Job defines the spirit and to whom it belongs to through Hebrew parallelism:

All the while my breath is in me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils - Job 27:3

My breath of life is God's spirit. If it were immortal it wouldn't be my thinking, emotional self, but God's essence. However, it is not and that same breath will be breathed back into man at the resurrection. It is creation anew.

To say that this spirit, breath that gives us life is our 'thinking, cogitating, immortal soul' is wrong and is not biblical.

Ah, yes, the "it's symbolic" argument. Convenient, but not consistent. First of all, where does it say that there are millions of souls "crammed under an altar"? This is your characterization, guibox, not Scripture's. Second, this passage makes absolutely no direct or indirect reference to Abel. What parallel you draw between the two passages is entirely of your own making, not Scripture's. Thirdly, if there are millions of souls "crammed under the altar" how are they going to "frolic" there as you suggest? Again, you're just imposing on the text as it suits your imagination to do so. :o :roll:

Nope. It is you who are mistaken and imposing your own views. It is ignorance to completely do away with the symbolic argument as it is a symbolic verse. There are no more disembodied souls under some altar then there are literal riders on horseback named 'Death' and 'Pestilence'. Of course THOSE are symbolic, but the rest isn't!" :roll:

And when you understand the biblical usage of the parallel between 'blood' and 'life (soul)' crying out for vengeance, you see the parallel between the description of Abel's blood and 'life'. Combine that with the blood under the altar and the biblical parallel is unmistakeable. Only someone who wants badly enough for the passage to fit their preconceived notion that the soul is immortal will miss it.

Of the two of you, Walter Martin has, by far, the greater weight of scholarship to back up his interpretation. Unless, of course, you're a world-reknowned Bible scholar and teacher, guibox... :

So? I can find scholars more qualified then Martin who will say the complete opposite.

You seem to have totally missed the point Dr. Martin made about the word "with". Christ is bringing with him the souls who will be reunited with their resurrected, glorified bodies. This means that these souls are not presently with their bodies in the grave. They are with Christ, like a child with his parent, not absorbed, through some kind of spiritual osmosis, back into God's Being.

No I didn't miss the point. The interpretation is based solely on the KJV text and not the context of the verse. The context of the verse makes no sense the way Martin interprets it unless you superimpose preconceived ideas into it.

The previous part of the verse makes no sense in the context you interpret it."

"For if we believe that Jesus DIED and ROSE again, even so (or more aptly put " in the same manner as , them also which sleep in Jesus will GOD bring with HIM (Jesus)"

"Whom God hath raised up having loosed the pains of death...This Jesus hath God rasied up. whereof we are all witnesses - Acts 2:24,32

It is God the Son coming back to earth, not God the Father. God the Father raised Christ and if we believe that, so to will God raise us in the same manner. Them that sleep will be raised. You cannot have the essence of man 'sleeping' and coming down consciously to be resurrected.

Again your intpretation is skewed by our insistance to separate body and 'soul' and make all applicable references to death and 'sleeping' to apply strictly to the body. The bible makes no such distinction and such an interpretation must be read into the text.

Rather 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Timothy 4:6-8 show that man receives eternal life and rewards at the resurrection, and not at death. You cannot ignore this plain teaching.