I agree with what you’ve said here. My rejection of those stories is based on my understanding of Scripture and my understanding of the power of the human mind.
That's probably a mistake. Although scripture does use hyperbole, and parable, both.... there is likely something more that you've overlooked. Let me start out by agreeing, however, that it is very reasonable to consider Hades as equivalent to the grave. But, the grave is not only the pit of death -- it is also equivalent to many a dark place, and scripture also shows that a dark pit can be a womb of life. Look to Sarah, the "pit" from which you were dug. ( Isaiah 51:1 )
However, we do have Scripture that says a spirit doesn’t have a body.
37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?39 "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for
a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (
Luk 24:37-39 NKJ)
Yes... but that's also a passage which shows that if a man dies, and his body is dead, then people of the time clearly assumed the ghost or specter of that person can visit them after death; very much as Saul sought to have Samuel speak to him after death, although he KNEW Samuel's body was in a grave and exactly where it was. That kind of spirit, no longer has flesh and bones for the very reason that it is literally disembodied by dying or execution. That's what the power of death is... and Jesus is disproving to the disciples in Luke 24:37 what *they* thought they were seeing -- a disembodied spirit; a specter of the dead or perhaps a vision in their minds.
Whether a spirit can form a body on it's own, of it's own power, is different from whether people believed a disembodied spirit in angst or anger of being murdered might be in an evil state and might seek to possess another mans body (eg: we know from scripture that at very least, demons and possession go together). So -- although I agree with your quote, and a possible implication: I don't think Luke 24:37-39 intends to answer the question of whether or not a spirit can form a body from the dust, on it's own, and even if it can have flesh and bones; for clearly if devils who are spirits can possess a man, then it's not a far leap of logic to think a vindictive spirit of a dead man, who's friends deserted him at the cross, might also come back from the grave to possess the body of someone with a guilty conscience.
But on the other hand, good spirits, and the spirit of God himself, are sometimes mentioned as having bodies (soma), eg:
Luke 3:22
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/3-22.htm "in the bodily form of a dove".
So that spirits, even if we can't prove it has a body of "dust" for sure -- at very least, a spirit must be able to have the eyes, wings, beak, and other features of a dove in some translucent but visible form even if it wasn't *born* with a fleshly body. To draw out the implication: If scripture shows a bodily form for a pure spirit, why then do you have problems with Abraham having hands, and eyes, or the Rich Man ? They simply aren't hands and eyes made of flesh, if that's the case ? is it not ?
Paul uses a present tense verb here which indicates a present continuous action on God's part. This statement flatly refutes the idea that humans have immortal souls. It also refutes the immortality of angles. According to this passage everything that is alive is living because God is presently and continuously giving it life.
Hmmm...
That shows that immortality comes from God, continuously, as it's source; But I don't see how that shows that man or angels aren't immortal.
Even in your quote of Job 34, it already says, God will never DO wickedly -- eg: although a man can imagine that the power to do wickedly, does exist within God.
It goes without saying that God could slay man by taking away any number of things that belong to God, for everything that is created belongs to God. If he took away just the oxygen in the air, and left us the rest of the nitrogen and carbon dioxide; we would still die though technically he didn't take away all the "spirit" known as air. And although you are correct that there are two words which mean breath, or air, in the sentence in Job -- I don't see how it follows that there is only one kind of spirit, and not tens of millions of individual spirits each with unique traits. Eg: That the author is abbreviating, and that all spirits are represented by two examples.
Even when Paul spoke of Body, Soul, and Spirit like you were talking about earilier -- even a quick look at the Greek reveals that Paul said TWO distinct things in the received text; eg: that God preserve
them, I think in whole (holos) purpose (teleos) and whole (holos) portion (klEros).
I mean, look for yourself -- don't be confused by what I just said:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_thessalonians/5-23.htm
Paul is even fore-warning us that the list is going to be redundant in terms of constituents, for the union is to be preserved as well as the parts and must be listed separately.
So: It's not a stable deduction that because there are three "things" mentioned by Paul, that a man is made up of three parts (AKA: I agree with you that one can reasonably think that a man IS a soul , not that he must have a soul, for soul is in the joining of spirit + body. )
I also think it's a premature discernment to take a passage relating to groups of people, and use it to try and extract what "components" an individual has in their make-up in the first place. Especially without thinking carefully about whether or not scripture could also mean one of the spirits of churches, as mentioned in revelation, vs. spirit of the age, or air. etc. which is the guardian or preserver of the group of men Paul is speaking to.
Then there's also issues with picking bones with people, for we say "bone" but often mean "bone and marrow", and so (for example) with Adam and Eve, is she just "bone" of his bones -- or also the marrow, and joints ? Parts, and whole, are often used interchangably (synecdoche), though they DO have different meanings.
eg: A Ships captain has often said "all hands on deck" according to WHAT he want's done requiring a man's hands -- but I know for sure that he want's their butts up there too!