The Root of It

[CP_Mike]

Hi Mike,

Mike wrote:


I do not claim to have an understanding of Hebrew, or Greek, very little if you can consider it any at this point. I do know this, though, Scripture MUST be it's own interpretation first and foremost, even if the words are Hebrew. The context of the words are important. The traditional beliefs of a specific sect of Jews does not determine the state of a soul after physical death, nor do any modern denominations, God does alone. The Sadducees actually only took the Torah into consideration, and ignored the rest of Scripture. I think as believers we have the WHOLE revelation of God, and the Holy Spirit to teach us, and we can not ignore that...we won't. I have no quarrel with your answer at all, though. In fact, I think it does show that there was some sort of sleep state to the soul that the Hebrew language described as shades, or shadows. It's obvious Samuel was called up, and was able to be recognized, and communicate.

Genesis 2:7 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.

Man is body, and soul. Man's body will die...it is appointed unto man once to die. But, I believe that Scripture teaches that his soul/spirit/life(?) only sleeps.

Isaiah 24:17-22 refers to the death of the wicked prior to the millennial reign of Christ. So, they are very dead in body...and in soul, though I believe their soul is conscious, as in asleep, until they are resurrected unto judgement for the eternal death that awaits them. I think the deadness of man being a final state of non-existence is error, and there is no pattern for it at all in Scripture. Verses that say the dead know nothing to no force me to conclude this at all. The dead know nothing in their sleep, unless they are called up as Samuel was, and all is recollected unto their Spirits. Samuel was even aware that Saul had called him up.

Consider Mark 9:45-49 (KJV)45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt."

I will explain more in my next post, and may the Lord bless you.

Hi Lovely,
This is a fascinating subject! Genesis 2;7 is one of my favourite verses:
7And 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 (Nephesh)

Breath of life is Ruah (spirit) and 'Nephesh' is translated as 'living soul' or 'living being'. The man never got a soul he became one

The important thing to know is that the Hebrews had no word for 'whole', and used 'Nephesh' to mean the 'whole' as well as 'life' (compare with Lev 17:11, DT 12:23 and then Ezekiel 18:4 and you will see differences in the meanings.

However, the conciousness of an individual is the heart, not soul. If you like, I can send you some material which defines the Hebrew understanding of personhood.

 

[CP_Mike]

Hi everyone,

This post is connected to my last response to Mike...so it may make better sense if both are read. It's long simply because I printed the verses for everyone's ease.

I want to ask another question to everyone.

Will ALL men (body and soul) be resurrected again?

We will be resurrected again, but not the soul. This applies all people, not just believers and then comes judgement.

 

[CP_Mike]

I understand that nephesh means life. I'm not denying that. But the Scripture quoted is using the word ψυχή, and there is a difference.. That's my point. I don't need to read those Scriptures you quoted, infact nephesh is used severial times throughout the Word, but not in the Scripture at hand. So I'm asking what program you or the others are getting this from???

I am not sure what you mean by 'program' unless you mean 'translation program'

Here is a link from a respected theologian who has researched the OT and NT view of 'Nephesh ' and 'psuche'

http://www.drhoff.com/Writings/writings.htm

 

[Solo]

I am not sure what you mean by 'program' unless you mean 'translation program'

Here is a link from a respected theologian who has researched the OT and NT view of 'Nephesh ' and 'psuche'

http://www.drhoff.com/Writings/writings.htm

"Respected Theologian" is quite a stretch, my friend.

 

[CP_Mike]

Here is a portion from Dr.Tory Hoff which answers some of the circular arguments going on here.

Psuche in the New Testament

Christ's use of the common language of the Jews, Aramaic, germinated a richer understanding of life a N and challenged the old Hebrew perspective for N. Since N was in an insecure position and faced the possibility of harm and even utter destruction, the ancient Israelites focused upon saving N, delivering N from danger, restoring N to safety, and sustaining N through provisions, especially food. It is recorded in Greek that Christ said into this OT context, "He who tries to save his P will lose P, but he who is willing to lose his P for my sake will save it." (Mk. 8:35, Mat. 16:25, 10:39, Lk. 9:24, 17:33, and Jn. 12:25) Whether said in Aramaic or recorded in Greek, its impact upon the Jews would have been dramatic because it posed a threat which carried the intensity of N. Many Jews became befuddled and thought they had plenty of reason to dismiss, reject, or rationalize his claim. He had the audacity to proclaim that N could be saved only through doing the apparent opposite. How exasperating to be told the fulfillment of the promise came only through giving up the very thing for which they were hoping! And how 'teeth gnashing' to be told that this saving of P could occur only if the losing of P was done for "his sake".

Nonetheless Christ demonstrated his teaching by acting toward men and women in a manner that culminated in his own crucifixion. Christ came "to give his P as a ransom for many" (Mat. 20:28) and came as the good shepherd who "laid down his P for the sheep". (John 10:11) This was a new commandment for the Jews and yet it was the old one given since the beginning. (see I John 2:7-8) With respect to the Hebrew view of N, it was a new commandment because losing P, giving up P, and laying down P were all new ways of viewing N, yet old because N was still saved through an obedient leb. Christ therefore expanded the semantic field for N of his day and consequently influenced the style in which the Gospel writers employed the Greek word 'P'.

Besides initiating a life style of sacrificing P, Christ radically altered the old view of N when he instituted Communion at the Last Supper. The drinking of his blood represented through the drinking of wine (which was considered the blood of the grape, see Deut. 32:14) could only dumbfound the Jews raised in their Hebrew tradition that drinking blood was akin to murder because sacred N was being consumed. Yet, Christ said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you." (Jn. 6:53) The Jews were revolted and murmured because of this claim. (see vs. 60-61) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him." (v. 66) Later the disciples consumed his P and therefore participated in his murder, but in drinking his blood they were also nourished by that life which defeated the grave.

There is no evidence in the canonical books of the Bible which indicates that this notion of saving P through losing it was familiar to the Jews. Since the OT was written within a culture emphasizing the preservation of N, the canonical books of the OT contain only two instances of people risking N for the sake of another. Both Jud. 9:17 and I Chron. 11:19 record an act of wartime bravery. The Jews did not have in their Hebrew tradition an explicit statement of the concept of "laying down their P for the brethren". (I John 3:16, Jn. 5:13) It is fascinating to discover that the NT church began to grasp this new perspective for N that Christ gave to P. Barnabas and Silas became men who "had risked their P" for the sake of Christ. (Acts 15:26) Epaphroditus also "risked his P for the work of Christ". (Phil. 2:30) The Apostle Paul himself wrote, "I do not account my P of any value nor as precious to myself..." (Acts 20:24) He was willing to lose P just as Christ had commanded. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own P, he can­not be my disciple." (Lk. 14:26)

Christ added a sense of resurrection to the Hebred view of N. Throughout OT times people were afraid of those that sought N in order to destroy. Christ, however, taught: "... do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill P; rather fear him who can destroy both P and body in gehenna." (Mat. 10:28) The Hebrews believed man could kill N; but Christ instead taught that man could not kill P. Even though the Jews might try to tamper with P, ultimately they could not. When teaching his disciples to expect persecution, Christ said, "You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death; you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your P." (Lk. 21:19) The Jews were challenged to see that P could be saved if P would be sacrificed. Christ's disciples learned that God still would keep P safe despite even death. "But we are not of those who shrink and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their P." (Heb. 10:39) The P that was sacrificed would receive a full existence and not the sha­dowy existence of the rephaim.

Both James and Peter grasped this new way of viewing N. James wrote, "...receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your P." (James 1:21) He also claimed that bringing back "a sinner from the error of his way will save his P from death". (James 5:20) Peter agreed with the idea that enduring persecution gains P (Lk. 2:19) and that those with faith keep P (Heb. 10:39) when he wrote, "As the outcome of your faith, you obtain the salvation of your P." ( I Peter 1:9)

The more common interpretation found today of P in the above pas­sages is actually a combination of a misunderstanding of N in the OT and popular views of soul stemming from the Greek tradition. A contradictory conglomeration of the Hebrew tradition for N and the usual view of soul underlies the way the word 'P' is often understood today. The 'opening up' of N into the NT use of P has lent itself to the tradition of 'saving souls'. The concept of soul as immaterial entity is easily read into the saving of P found in the NT. The P kept safe despite death becomes under­stood to be that supposed entity which survives death. One must view P in the context of its Hebrew tradition and not a Greek tradition of soul arti­culated by Plato. The deliverance, keeping, and saving of P must be understood to be a development of the deliverance, keeping and saving of N.
There is evidence that Paul was aware of the possibility of this very distortion during his time. He knew the presence of a Platonic tradition would be particularly confusing to the Gentile converts. E. Schweizer, in his article in Kittel's Theological Dictionary, pointed out that Paul never used P for a life which survives death. Schweizer maintained that Paul, when struggling for greater theological clarity, used pneuma (usually translated 'spirit' like the Hebrew word 'ruah') in reference to life after death and not P. Paul certainly acknowledged a continuity between earthly life and resurrection, but since he saw it as a gift of God and not man's doing, pneuma was used instead. (see p. 650) The passage on resurrection in I Cor. 15 shows how Paul kept P within the Hebrew tradition. The first man, Adam, was "living P" (the N hayyah of Gen. 2:7); the last man a "life-giving pneumaâ€Â. (v. 45) Psuchikon was the earthly seed sown perishable, corruptible, dishonourable and weak. Pneumatikon was raised imperishable, incorruptible, glorified and powerful. (v. 42-44) In Paul's view, flesh and blood could not inherit the Kingdom of God. (v. 50) The OT relation between blood and N lead to the conclusion that P could not inherit the Kingdom of God either. Unlike his friends James and Peter, the Apostle Paul did not use expressions such as 'saving P'. He expanded the Hebrew tradition for N only through the new notions of spending, risking, and sacrificing P. That Paul refrained from the expression 'saving P' does not mean that he believed that P was not saved through its sacrifice. Rather, P could be saved through becoming pneuma. The P referred to by the first disciples of Christ was not a rational soul that could comprehend the 'world of Ideas' nor a soul that was a microcosm of the divine. If Christians today are to be consistent with their original heritage, then they must use an expression such as 'immortality of the soul' in a manner different from the ancient Greeks. Paul realized the importance of this fact for his audience and therefore gave P no immortality. The preservation of the Biblical P was not considered to be an automatic process nor something ultimately within the power and control of P. It was understood to be a gift from the Giver received under the condition that P itself was sacrificed.

Now that evidence demonstrates how P was rooted in N and yet expanded its theme with NT meaning, one can look at verses that are especially susceptible to mis-interpretation.

During a meeting where Paul was speaking at length, a Eutychus sank into a deep sleep, fell from the third story, and was subsequently found dead. In Hebrew terms this meant he was no longer breathing. Acts 20:10 reads, "But Paul went down and bent over him and embracing him said, 'Do not be alarmed for his P is in him."' The event is parallel to the times Elijah and later Elisha laid upon a child whose N then came to him again. (I Kings 17:17; 11 Kings 4:32-36) One traditionally pictures a N entity that returns after first leaving the body. But if it was not some immaterial entity that left and returned to each child and Eutychus, then what did happen? Clarity comes when one realizes the Hebrew tradition viewed death as the event of creation in reverse. Out of dust man became N hayyah. Man breathed his last ruah when he died; he returned to dust and, therefore, was no longer N. In these passages the children and Eutychus revived as they began to breathe again. Ruah-breath returned and thus they were still N hayyah. The return of N or P was understood to be an event that could follow a 'departure of N' such as the one described in Gen. 35:18.

The division of P and pneuma in Hebrews 4:12 is also subject to various interpretations today. "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of P and pneuma, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Schweizer said that no theological trichotomy could have been in view since bones and marrow do not part. Thus P and pneuma were not distinguished, but rather the word penetrated both together. (see p. 651) However, though no trichotomy was in view here and the word did penetrate each, in this instance the NT writer did believe that P and pneuma were distinguishable just as clearly as a bone (joint?) and its life-giving marrow were known to be distinct. The division noted in Heb. 4:12 is no different than Paul's distinction in I Cor. 15. To divide P and pneuma was to divide the corruptible and the incorruptible. The word could discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart and thereby separate the obedient from the disobedient. Those whose hearts were disobedient


'N' = 'Nephesh' in the OT, 'P' = 'Psuche' in the NT

 

[CP_Mike]

"Respected Theologian" is quite a stretch, my friend.

Have you read all 18 pages?

How can you criticise the author before evaluating it?

 

[CP_Mike]

Here are his references:

Bibliography
Research on nephesh and psuche involved seven major sources. They are here listed chronologically since the sequence reflects a development in the views of Biblical scholars.

Robinson, Henry Wheeler; The Christian Doctrine of Man, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911.

Hebrew Psychology". In Peake, Arthur S.,(ed.)*; People and the Book, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925. Robinson's investigation of the OT view of man has had more lasting impact than any other study before Pedersen. His use of the work done in cultural anthropology of his day helped develop a new approach to OT studies.
Pedersen, Johannes; Israel, (two vols.), London: Oxford University Press, 1926. (Danish original, 1920)

This book represents the first comprehensive work on the culture of the ancient Hebrews and is considered a decisive turning point in the modern understanding of the OT view of man. It is a classic still useful today despite its over dependence upon studies of primitive culture of this century and, specific to this study, its questionable use of the word 'soul'.
Johnson, Aubrey R.; The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, (2nd edition), Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964. (first published 1949)

Johnson has done an extensive study of Hebrew anthropological terms which has only recently been approached by Jacob's article and perhaps surpassed by Wolff's chapter on nephesh. The second edition includes ample footnotes as well as an elaborate bibliography and index.
Murtonen, A.; The Living Soul: A Study of the Meaning of the Word Nephesh in the Old Testament Hebrew Language, Helsinski: 1958.

This study is especially interesting to the present author because Murtonen used a similar methodological approach yet arrived at entirely different conclusions. He seems to have missed the validity of Johnson's point that interchanging nephesh and soul is questionable and, furthermore, to have established categories for different uses of nephesh based on a material/formal criterion. In addition, the reading is difficult due to awkward sentence structure.
Jacob, Edmund; "Nephesh'. In Kittel, Gerhard, (ed.); Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. (German original 1953-55)

In this article Jacob made some good points on specific passages containing nephesh yet failed to make a comprehensive re-formation.
Schweizer, Edward; "Psuche". In Kittel, Gerhard, (ed.); Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. (German original 1953-55)

Schweizer, as did Jacob on nephesh, made good comments regarding psuche in specific passages. His view on Paul's use of psuche awa­kened the present author to the fact that the NT writers did not use psuche in quite the same way.
Wolff, Hans Walter; Anthropology of the Old Testament, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. (German original 1973)

More than any other author studied, Wolff has demonstrated a sense of the thematic imagery intrinsic to nephesh which is emphasized in the present study. It might have been more enlightening if he had made reference to the views of previous authors while elaborating his own.
The following are recommended for further reading on the subject of nephesh and the Old Testament view of man.

Becker, Johannes H.; Het Begrip Nefesi in het Oude Testament, Amsterdam: Noord Hollandsche Uitg., 1942.

Briggs, C.A.; "The Use of Nephesh in the Old Testament", Journal of Biblical Literature, 16:17-30, 1897.

Dhorme, Edouard Paul; "L'emploi m6taphorique des noms de parties du corps en h6breu et accadien", Paris: Revue Biblique_, 1923.

Eichrodt, Walther; Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967. (German original 1935)

Janse, Antheunis; De Mensch als Levende Ziel, Culmenborg: Uitg. De Pauw, 1933. (chapters 1 and 2 in English manuscript as "Man as a Living Soul")

Lys, Daniel; "Nephesh: Histoire de l'ime dans la revelation d'Israel au sein des religions proche-orientales", Etudes d'histoire et philosophie religieuses, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959.

Snaith, Norman H.; The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, Philadel­phia: Westminster Press, 1946. (Fernley-Hartley lecture, 1944)

The following are books of a more philosophical nature which discuss the issue of soul/body and mind/body and for the most part contrast the Greek and Hebrew perspectives.

Berkouwer, Gerrit C.; Man: the Image of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. (Dutch original 1957)

In his chapter, "The Whole Man", Berkouwer discussed the issue of substantial dichotomy, that is, the soul/body dualism. This is not an exegetical study; it is an involved look at the issue in the history of the Church and surveys contemporary attempts to establish the unity of man.
Cullmann, Oscar; "Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead: The Witness of the New Testament", New York: MacMillan, 1958. (Ingersoll lecture, 1955)

Cullmann here argued for the view that both the body and soul can be in the power of either the flesh or spirit.
Owen, D.R.G.; Body and Soul: A Study on the Christian View of Man, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.

Owen traced the influence of Greek thought on modern science and con­trasted it to the Biblical view as he saw it
Robinson, John A.T.; The Bodv: A Studv of Pauline Theology, London: SCM Press, 1966. (first published 1952)

Robinson summarized his view of the Hebrew anthropological perspective and then refuted the belief that Greek thought influenced Paul's anthropology.
Schilder, Klaas; Heaven, What Is It?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. (Dutch original 1935)

Though he concentrated on another subject, Schilder did spend a few pages distinguishing soul and spirit along the lines that Paul made in I Corinthians 15.
Shestov, Lev; Athens and Jerusalem, Athens: Ohio University Press, 1960. (Russian original 1938)

Shestov's command of the history of Western thought in contrast to Christian thought is quite evident in this book, his last major work.
Tresmontant, Claude; A Study in Hebrew Thought, New York: Desclee Co., 1960. (French original 1953)

This is a highly recommended book on the difference between Greek and Hebrew thought that is partial to, though critical of, Bergson.
van Peursen, Cornelius A.; Body, Soul, Spirit: A Survey of the Body-Mind Problem, London: Oxford University Press, 1966. (Dutch original 1956)

As the title indicates, van Peursen surveyed the mind-body problem from the ancients to the 20th Century, and ended with his phenomenological position on the unity of mental and physical being.
On language and thought:

Chomsky, Noam; Language and Mind, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1972. (first published 1968)

The lecture "The Past" summarized ideas found in his book Cartesian Linguistics (1966) which gives a stimulating, noticeably Chomskian, defense of Descartes' rationalism and its influence upon the study of language in especially the 17th Century
Whorf, Benjamin Lee; Language, Thought, and Reality, Cambridge: Technology Press of MIT, 1956.

This is a thought-provoking book containing a collection of papers written by this free-lance linguist of the 1930's who not only argued that language reflects a world view, but, unfortunately, that language structures and even determines that world view
Toward a philosophy of science:

Kuhn, Thomas; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. (first published 1962)

Kuhn asserted that the scientific community exhibits a definite psycho­social behaviour which operates under the rubric of a 'paradigm'.
Polanyi, Michael; Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, New York: Harper and Row, 1964. (first published 1958)

This is a highly recommended critique of the development of positivism and objectivism in the sciences. One main point made is that the characteristics of the knower, the subject, influence his knowledge of the known, the object.
Reference material:

Brown, F.; Driver, S.R.; Briggs, C.A.; A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. (first published 1891)

Cameron, W.J.; "Soul". In New Bible Dictionary, London: Intervarsity Fellowship, 1962.

Dictionary. English. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1965.

Wigram, George; Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, (6th edition), London: Bagster & Sons, 1963. (first published 1843)

Wigram, George; Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, (2nd edition), New York: Harper, 1855.

Berry, George Ricker: The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, Genesis and Exodus, Chicago: Follett Pub. Co., 1959. (first published 1897)

Bible. English. The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962.

Bible. N.T. Greek. The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation by Alfred Marshall, London: Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd., 1972.

Kittel, Rudolph, (ed.); Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart: WUrttembergische
Bibelanstalt, 1973. (first published 1937)


Surely, you are right and they are wrong???

 

[Solo]

Surely, you are right and they are wrong???

If they disagree with Jesus, they are wrong.

 

[CP_Mike]

If they disagree with Jesus, they are wrong.

Well, as they don't disagree with Jesus, they are right.

 

[jgredline]

Well, as they don't disagree with Jesus, they are right.

:o :o

 

[CP_Mike]

If they disagree with Jesus, they are wrong.

Well, since I posted the excerpt from what Jesus had to say about 'psuche', what is the problem?

 

[Solo]

Well, since I posted the excerpt from what Jesus had to say about 'psuche', what is the problem?

You ignore Jesus' teachings on hell, eternal fire, eternal punishment, eternal life in Matthew 25. You ignore Jesus' teaching in Luke 16. You ignore Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 about hell fire. You ignore Jesus' teaching about the eye or hand perishing as opposed to the whole body being tossed into hell in Matthew 5. You ignore Jesus' teaching that we are body and soul and God can destroy both in hell as recorded in Matthew 10. You ignore Jesus' teaching concerning one being cast into hell fire as taught in Matthew 18. You ignore Jesus' teaching the damnation of hell in Matthew 23. You ignore Jesus' teaching about hell after death in Luke 16. You ignore Jesus' teaching concerning those workers of iniquity being cast into the furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth recorded in Matthew 13. You ignore that hell and death are two separate existences as recorded in four separate verses in Revelation. You ignore the places in scripture that deliniate the separation between the physical body and the soul as in Acts 2:27.

 

[guibox]

Sad but true, CP, is that they will believe what they want simply because they don't want to be wrong. Your source has some interesting information and if many would take the time to read it and understand the Bible, the 'truth would set them free'.

Instead, they would rather believe what they want when they hear 'soul' or 'spirit' regardless of the original language and context.

What they are basically saying is...'Don't confuse me with what the Bible says."

It is sad and dangerous to see Christians taking a hard nosed stance against the Bible itself.

Tradition and Greek Catholic beliefs are firmly ingrained in the hearts of orthodox apologists. Luckily, God's word is a 'two edged sword' and can cut through the bonds of legalist man-made traditions and interpretations.

They just have to let the Spirit open their minds and hearts

I will be praying for them.

 

[jgredline]

Guibox quotes are in bold


Since this debate is taking place in many places I thought I would place this here as well.

guibox

I had time to sneak this in as my daughter is now at 7cm so I need to go.
Lovely. Thanks!

Ok Guibox
Lets take a look as according to soma sight this fabulous post of yours.


jg,
\0\0BTW,yo\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0u mentioned 'Hades' as being the place where the demons reside. This is false. The place where the demons reside is 'Tartaros' which is used only the one time in 2 Peter. I figured your concordance was shady and mostly infused with preconceived notions, now I know that for a fact...

Guibox
The concordance and Dictionary I use are Strongs. In addition I can also read and understand Greek. Can you?
So lets look at the word you mentioned here ‘’ Tartaros’’
This is what the strongs def says here.

The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words: tartarŏō ταρταρόω
5020. ταρταρόω tartarŏō, tar-tar-ŏ´-o; from Τάρταρος Tartarŏs, (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: cast down to hell.

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: 5020 ταρταρόω
5020 ταρταρόω [tartaroo /tar•tar•o•o/] v. From Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); GK 5434; AV translates as “cast down to hell†once. 1 the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews. 2 to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus.

So now Guibox. I ask you. Where is ‘’ Tartaros’’ Located? I will give you a hint. Read the above definition..


Guibox Wrote:
As far as the topic goes,

You might have a bit more credibility if you argued that since the death and resurrection of Jesus righteous man has been given an 'immortal spirit'. Though not accurate, at least you would have biblical scripture and logic to support it.

LOL. How can Jesus be given anything? Guibox. I seek no credibility from you for that would bring me two steps backwards.

To say that man is inherently immortal is a falsehood that cannot be supported by scripture.


The soul will continue for all eternity. As has been proven to you and others many times with the scriptures.


Guibox wrote:
Instead (and I would like you to comment on these please) the Bible says:
1)That immortality is only an attribute of God (1 Timothy 1:16)

I am not sure you understand it but here is what this passage means.
This explains why Paul obtained mercy. It was so that he might be an exhibit of the longsuffering of Jesus Christ. Just as he had been the chief of sinners, so now he would be the chief display of the untiring grace of the Lord. He would be “Exhibit A,†a living example, of divine love rising above the most active hostility, of divine longsuffering exhausting the most varied and persistent antagonism.
Paul’s case would be a pattern. In the printing trade, pattern means a first proof. It signifies a specimen or a sample. Paul’s conversion would be a pattern of what God would do with the nation of Israel when the Deliverer comes out of Zion (Rom. 11:26).
In a more general sense the verse means that none need despair, no matter how wicked they might be. They can console themselves that since the Lord has already saved the chief of sinners, they too can find grace and mercy by coming to Him as penitents. By believing on Him, they too can find everlasting life. To those who reject him, everlasting torment in the lake of fire.


Guibox Wrote:
2) That immortality is something we seek, not something we have (Romans 2:7)

In explaining that judgment will be according to works, Paul says that God will render eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality. As I have already explained in another thread , this does not mean that these people are saved by patient continuance in doing good. That would be another gospel which is what you preach.. No one would naturally live that kind of life, and no one could live it without divine power. Anyone who really fits this description has already been saved by grace through faith. The fact that he seeks for glory, honor, and immortality shows that he has already been born again. The whole tenor of his life shows that he has been converted.
He seeks for the glory of heaven; the honor that comes only from God (John 5:44); the immortality that characterizes the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:53, 54); the heavenly inheritance, which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading (1 Pet. 1:4).
God will award eternal life to all who manifest this evidence of a conversion experience. Eternal life is spoken of in several ways in the NT. It is a present possession which we receive the moment we are converted (John 5:24). It is a future possession which will be ours when we receive our glorified bodies (here and in Rom. 6:22). Although it is a gift received by faith, it is sometimes associated with rewards for a life of faithfulness (Mark 10:30). All believers will have eternal life, but some will have a greater capacity for enjoying it than others. It means more than endless existence; it is a quality of life, the more abundant life which the Savior promised in John 10:10. It is the very life of Christ Himself (Col. 1:27). For those who are not Born again will receive eternal life in the lake of Fire with Satan and his demons.


Guibox Wrote:
3) That David himself hasn't gone to heaven in any form (Acts 2:29,34)

Peter argues that David could not have been saying these things about himself, because his body had seen corruption. His tomb was well known to the Jews of that day. They knew he had not been raised.
When he wrote the Psalm, David was speaking as a prophet. He remembered that God had promised to raise up One of his descendants to sit on his throne forever. David realized that this One would be the Messiah, and that though He would die, His soul would not be left in the disembodied condition, and His body would not decay.
Now Peter repeats an announcement that must have shocked his Jewish audience. The Messiah of whom David prophesied was Jesus of Nazareth. God had raised Him from among the dead, as the apostles could all testify because they were eyewitnesses to His resurrection. Following His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God, and now the Holy Spirit had been sent as promised by the Father. This was the explanation of what had happened in Jerusalem earlier in the day.
Had not David also predicted the exaltation of the Messiah? He was not speaking of himself in Psalm 110:1. Instead he was quoting Jehovah as saying to the Messiah, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.†(Note carefully that verses 33–35 predict a waiting time between the glorification of Christ and His return to punish His enemies and set up His kingdom.)

Guibox wrote:
4) That immortality/eternal life is a gift of God only bestowed on mankind AFTER Christ's giving of it by his resurrection, and not before (John 3:16)

I WAS GOING TO SKIP COMMENTATING ON THIS, but then realized that perhaps you and others here really need to grasp this. This Verse after all is the Gospel. OK, This is one of the best known verses in all the Bible, doubtless because it states the gospel so clearly and simply. It summarizes what the Lord Jesus had been teaching Nicodemus concerning the manner by which the new birth is received. God, we read, so loved the world. The world here includes all mankind. God does not love men’s sins or the wicked world system, but He loves people and is not willing that any should perish.
The extent of His love is shown by the fact that He gave His only begotten Son. God has no other Son like the Lord Jesus. It was an expression of His infinite love that He would be willing to give His unique Son for a race of rebel sinners. This does not mean that everyone is saved. A person must receive what Christ has done for him before God will give him eternal life. Therefore, the words are added, “that whoever believes in Him should not perish.†There is no need for anyone to perish. A way has been provided by which all might be saved, but a person must acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior. When he does this, he has eternal life as a present possession.
I should also note that the word Parish here in the Greek is a A primary particle of qualified negation, meaning that it will go on for ever and ever through all eternity.
So if one is not Born from above, he will forever and ever be in the lake of fire and not perish.


Guibox wrote:
5) That man is given immortality not at death by some inherent nature, but at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51-55)

The answer as I have stated in another thread is in the form of a mystery. As a mystery is a truth previously unknown, but now revealed by God to the apostles and made known through them to us.
We shall not all sleep, that is, not all believers will experience death. Some will be alive when the Lord returns. But whether we have died or are still alive, we shall all be changed. The truth of resurrection itself is not a mystery, since it appears in the OT, but the fact that not all will die and also the change of living saints at the Lord’s Return is something that had never been known before.
The change will take place instantly, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. The last trumpet here does not mean the end of the world, or even the last trumpet mentioned in Revelation. Rather, it refers to the trumpet of God which will sound when Christ comes into the air for His saints (1 Thess. 4:16). When the trumpet sounds, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. What a tremendous moment that will be, when the earth and the sea will yield up the dust of all those who have died trusting in Christ down through the centuries! It is almost impossible for the human mind to take in the magnitude of such an event; yet the humble believer can accept it by faith. I hope I am alive to see this….
I believe that verse 53 refers to the two classes of believers at the time of Christ’s Return. This corruptible refers to those whose bodies have returned to the dust. They will put on incorruption. This mortal, on the other hand, refers to those who are still alive in body but are subject to death. Such bodies will put on immortality.
When the dead in Christ are raised and the living changed with them, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory†(Isa. 25:8).
Many scholars believe this verse may well be a taunt song which believers sing as they rise to meet the Lord in the air. It is as if they mock Death because for them it has lost its sting. They also mock Hades because for them it has lost the battle to keep them as its own. Death holds no terror for them because they know their sins have been forgiven and they stand before God in all the acceptability of His beloved Son. This makes perfect sense to me.
Death would have no sting for anyone if it were not for sin. It is the consciousness of sins unconfessed and unforgiven that makes men afraid to die. If we know our sins are forgiven, we can face death with confidence. If, on the other hand, sin is on the conscience, death is terribleâ€â€the beginning of eternal punishment.
The strength of sin is the law, that is, the law condemns the sinner. It pronounces the doom of all who have failed to obey God’s holy precepts. It has been well said that if there were no sin, there would be no death. And if there were no law, there would be no condemnation.


Guibox wrote:
and finally...
6) That immortality has been brought to life and death has been abolished by the Savior Jesus Christ and not before that (2 Timothy 1:10)

The same gospel that was designed in eternity was revealed in time. It was revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ. During the days of His flesh, He publicly proclaimed the good news of salvation. He taught men that He must die, be buried, and rise from the dead in order that God might righteously save ungodly sinners.
He abolished death. But how can this be, when we know that death is still very common in the world? The thought is that He annulled death, or put it out of commission. Before Christ’s resurrection, death ruled as a cruel tyrant over men. It was a dreaded foe. The fear of death held men in bondage. But the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a pledge that all who trust in Him will rise from the dead to die no more. It is in this sense that He has annulled death. He has robbed it of its sting. Death is now the messenger of God which brings the soul of the believer to heaven. It is our servant rather than our master.
Not only has the Lord Jesus annulled death, He has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. In the OT period, most men had a very vague and misty idea of life after death. They spoke of departed loved ones as in Sheol, which simply means the invisible state of departed spirits. Although they had a heavenly hope set before them, yet for the most part they did not understand it clearly.
Since the coming of Christ, we have much greater light on this subject. For instance, we know that when a believer dies, his spirit departs to be with Christ, which is far better. He is absent from the body and at home with the Lord. He enters into eternal life in all its fullness.
Christ has not only brought life to light, but also immortality. Immortality refers to the resurrection of the body. When we read in 1 Corinthians 15:53 that “this corruptible must put on incorruption,†we know that even though the body is placed in the grave and returns to dust, yet at the coming of Christ that same body will be raised from the grave and fashioned into a body of glory, similar to that of the Lord Jesus Himself. The OT saints did not have this knowledge. It was brought to us through the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
If my answeres all sound similar its because you asked similar questions going by your anointed concordance what ever it is u use, since my Strongs and Vines are no good.



Guibox Wrote:
Add to that where does it say that Lazarus was brought back from heaven when Jesusu resurrected him? Where is his story? Where is the evidence of his 'immortal' experience? Why did Jesus turn him from immortal back into mortal with absolutely no scriptural evidence of an explanation of this occurring?

Hey. You can ask Jesus this when your on the great white thrown judgment seat.

Guibox wrote:
Why with such clear teachings and language of the Hebrew and Greek to support these ideas do you base your entire theology around a parable, of whose contents cannot be supported by scripture anywhere else, that isn't even intended to teach about the afterlife?
when are you going to start believing the Bible instead of Greek, orthodox traditions furthered and fed by the Catholic church?

First of all the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. I am not a catholic, and if you believed the Bible, you would see that there is no such doctrine of annihilation taught any ware in scripture and that you need to be born again to understand them.

 

[CP_Mike]

You ignore Jesus' teachings on hell, eternal fire, eternal punishment, eternal life in Matthew 25. You ignore Jesus' teaching in Luke 16. You ignore Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 about hell fire. You ignore Jesus' teaching about the eye or hand perishing as opposed to the whole body being tossed into hell in Matthew 5. You ignore Jesus' teaching that we are body and soul and God can destroy both in hell as recorded in Matthew 10. You ignore Jesus' teaching concerning one being cast into hell fire as taught in Matthew 18. You ignore Jesus' teaching the damnation of hell in Matthew 23. You ignore Jesus' teaching about hell after death in Luke 16. You ignore Jesus' teaching concerning those workers of iniquity being cast into the furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth recorded in Matthew 13. You ignore that hell and death are two separate existences as recorded in four separate verses in Revelation. You ignore the places in scripture that deliniate the separation between the physical body and the soul as in Acts 2:27.

Solo,
I bet you did not read one page of that text. The OP is "Do we have an eternal soul?"

Scripture says 'no'

Jesus said no in MMatt 10:28,

God said no in Ezekiel 18:4, Numbers 23;10,

This thread has nothing to do with hellfire.

My point is that you misdefine the word 'soul' with something that the Greeks believe and interpret the bible through Plato's eyes.

It can't be done!

So, please fault the link (all 18 pages) and please refure anything stated from Dr.Hoff.

Please state your interpretation of 'eternal soul' against all the 'Nephesh' and 'psuche' references.

For my part, all Jesus' teachings are true and through the process of hermeunetics I have come to a view where Scripture does not contradict itself in this matter.

So, please don't divert from the OP, how does Dr. Hoff conflict with your view?

 

[CP_Mike]

[quote="jgredlineThe soul will continue for all eternity. As has been proven to you and others many times with the scriptures.
[/quote]

If I read it correctly, it should be congratualtions soon!

Sorry, but how does that statement tie up with these verses?

Job 7:15; Ezekiel 3:19; 18:4,20, Matthew 10:28, Psalm 22:20,29, Jeremiah 38:17, Isaiah 55:3, Joshua 10:28, Revelation 16:3, Numbers 23:10

All these verses state that 'Nephesh' or 'psuche' in NT Greek dies or gets destroyed.

Is the bible wrong?

 

[CP_Mike]

Sad but true, CP, is that they will believe what they want simply because they don't want to be wrong. Your source has some interesting information and if many would take the time to read it and understand the Bible, the 'truth would set them free'.

Instead, they would rather believe what they want when they hear 'soul' or 'spirit' regardless of the original language and context.

What they are basically saying is...'Don't confuse me with what the Bible says."

It is sad and dangerous to see Christians taking a hard nosed stance against the Bible itself.

Tradition and Greek Catholic beliefs are firmly ingrained in the hearts of orthodox apologists. Luckily, God's word is a 'two edged sword' and can cut through the bonds of legalist man-made traditions and interpretations.

They just have to let the Spirit open their minds and hearts

I will be praying for them.

Hi Guibox,
You are right.

For example, if the bible states in DT 12:23 "the soul (nephesh) is the blood", does this now mean blood is immortal?

23 But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat

whoops! I just realised that the NIV has translated 'Nephesh' to mean 'life'!

I wish the people arguing against the Hebrew position would check it out more thoroughly and put everything in context.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Are there any on this forum who have been swayed at all in favor of the common sense value as well as scripturally sound posts that have shown quite clearly that the 'traditional view' of this particular belief under discussion might just be in error?

Or, is it more a case of human pride and a digging in of the heels ...NEVER willing to admit that we just might have been wrong?

None of these such issues should ever be pride related since more than this destructive (though human) trait is at stake here. It should be a case of seeking the truth ...not a case of "I'm right - consequently you must be wrong!" I personally don't like to be proven wrong, especially if I'm being proven wrong on a long-held belief. I remember becoming almost militant when I was told that the earth is only 6000 years old and that 'cavemen' (as per 'The Flintstones') are merely a myth. Whether or not the earth IS only 6000 years old and that cavemen are a myth is beside the point. The point is that a long-held belief by me had been shaken and I didn't like it one bit.

The facts are that NOT EVERYONE can be right. So ...SOMEONE has to be wrong. Unfortunately, most of us rebel if we feel that we're in the latter group. I hope that the posts presented on this issue that REALLY DO seem to shake a long-held and popular traditional belief are at least seriously considered ...even if it does hurt one's pride somewhat. Another problem that needs to be faced, of course, is that admitting to perhaps being wrong on ONE long-held belief may mean having to adjust OTHER long-held beliefs accordingly.

But, this needs to be done if necessary. No one should ever feel ashamed or silly at admitting they may have been wrong. In fact, they should be commended for having done so. I'm sure that any number of people have initially come from the ranks of the 'traditionalists'. So, they now consider that they were once wrong too.

 

[mutzrein]

Are there any on this forum who have been swayed at all in favor of the common sense value as well as scripturally sound posts that have shown quite clearly that the 'traditional view' of this particular belief under discussion might just be in error?

Or, is it more a case of human pride and a digging in of the heels ...NEVER willing to admit that we just might have been wrong?

None of these such issues should ever be pride related since more than this destructive (though human) trait is at stake here. It should be a case of seeking the truth ...not a case of "I'm right - consequently you must be wrong!" I personally don't like to be proven wrong, especially if I'm being proven wrong on a long-held belief. I remember becoming almost militant when I was told that the earth is only 6000 years old and that 'cavemen' (as per 'The Flintstones') are merely a myth. Whether or not the earth IS only 6000 years old and that cavemen are a myth is beside the point. The point is that a long-held belief by me had been shaken and I didn't like it one bit.

The facts are that NOT EVERYONE can be right. So ...SOMEONE has to be wrong. Unfortunately, most of us rebel if we feel that we're in the latter group. I hope that the posts presented on this issue that REALLY DO seem to shake a long-held and popular traditional belief are at least seriously considered ...even if it does hurt one's pride somewhat. Another problem that needs to be faced, of course, is that admitting to perhaps being wrong on ONE long-held belief may mean having to adjust OTHER long-held beliefs accordingly.

But, this needs to be done if necessary. No one should ever feel ashamed or silly at admitting they may have been wrong. In fact, they should be commended for having done so. I'm sure that any number of people have initially come from the ranks of the 'traditionalists'. So, they now consider that they were once wrong too.

Good point Sput. The problem with accepting we might be wrong is the fact that many of our doctrines hang on very tenuous threads. If we accept we are wrong in one fundamental point, then everything that is built on it will also be wrong as you have eluded to.

So, unless we build on the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus, anything built on any other foundation will fail. And I am not ashamed to say that I am one who has had his whole foundation torn down and rebuilt.

 

[Oscar3]

Sput
Well this is a good oppertunity to admit your wrong. Repent and be baptized