What do you think?

[Solo]

My mistake for missing that, Solo.

However, the problem still stands. Solomon described the 'spirits of men going back to God who gave it' just as the spirits of Stephen and Christ did.

The nature and place of man didn't change for they both come out of the grave at the resurrection. Daniel 12:1,2 relates completely with John 5:28,29.

It is in trying to make the places, states and nature of man both righteous and unrighteous different before and after Christ that pits the NT against the OT when they do not contradict but agree. It is time to stop theorizing and getting so far off the track that the nature of man and salvation becomes unrecognizable.

The resurrection is for the bringing to life of the body in a incorruptible, immortal state. Jesus was resurrected on the third day, but his soul/spirit decended to Sheol to free the captives that were then raised to heaven. The souls of the righteous await the resurrection of the body; and the souls of the unrighteous are in torment awaiting the final culmination of being thrown into the lake of fire with their judged body.

I have not theorizing about the condition of man in Sheol. I have the Spirit of God dwelling within me teaching me all things. If you do not care to believe the Scriptures, then that is your choice. You will not be the first to not believe. The Pharisees and Saduccees did not believe and some of their false beliefs are still followed by some today.

The simple matter of fact is that when the physical body dies it goes into the grave, and the soul/spirit goes to the realm of God.

The unrighteous soul/spirit go to a place of fire and torment in Sheol/Hades as described by Jesus in Luke 16.

The righteous soul/spirit go to a place of peace in Abraham's bosom (paradise) in Sheol/Hades as described by Jesus in Luke 16.

After Jesus resurrection many things changed. Jesus led the righteous souls in Sheol/Hades to Heaven with Him, and from that point on all the souls/spirits go to be with God until the resurrection of the body.

The souls/spirits of the unrighteous remain in the place of fire and torment in Sheol/Hades until death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Drew]

I have the Spirit of God dwelling within me teaching me all things.

Did the Spirit of God teach you that the use of the conjunction "and" in Matthew 10:28:

Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell

is evidence against the wholistic / indivisible nature of man?

If soul and body were the same manifestation, then the conjunction "and" would be superfluous and unnecessary.

If so, we should encourage people to avoid statements like "I like her body and her personality" - since the "and" is superfluous unless we intend to suggest that the personality can float free of the human body.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
When the wicked spirit goes back to God, what does God then do with that spirit?

 

[guibox]

The resurrection is for the bringing to life of the body in a incorruptible, immortal state. Jesus was resurrected on the third day, but his soul/spirit decended to Sheol to free the captives that were then raised to heaven.

Difficult thing to do when the 'spirits' are already in heaven long before Christ came (see Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

Perhaps you should also carefully read 1 Corinthians 15 which shows clearly that life doesn't happen without the resurrection and that eternal life for mankind begins, not at our physical death as a disembodied soul but at the end of time at the resurrection of the just (see also 2 Timothy 4:6-8)

I have not theorizing about the condition of man in Sheol. I have the Spirit of God dwelling within me teaching me all things.

Better be careful what spirit you are following then, Solo. The word of God tells me:

There is no consciousness in Sheol:

Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10

All our thoughts perish in Sheol even as my spirit 'goeth up' (remember that our 'thoughts' would be what we would traditionally call a function of the higher sort, the spirit or soul)

Psalm 146:4

Pretty hard for the 'souls' to be in Sheol before Christ when it says that it 'goeth up' and there is no 'thoughts' in Sheol.

My bible tells me that all the dead are in Sheol awaiting the resurrection spoken of in Daniel 12 and John 5 and that our immortal change occurs then

Job 14:10-14

So I fail to see how you can argue against the clear word of scripture to impose your pagan Greek beliefs that are absolutely foreign to them.

The unrighteous soul/spirit go to a place of fire and torment in Sheol/Hades as described by Jesus in Luke 16.

The righteous soul/spirit go to a place of peace in Abraham's bosom (paradise) in Sheol/Hades as described by Jesus in Luke 16.

Solo, the sorry facts remain that there is nothing in the rest of scripture both linguistically or contextually to support the myriads of parabolic contradictions inherent in Luke 16. If you took this passage out of the bible, your arguments are completely laughable. Obviously then, Luke 16 is not the be all and end all of judgment theology nor intended to be a treatise on the afterlife.

- Nowhere is Hades a place of conscious torment in the scriptures (check all the other 10 instances of Hades in the NT)

- Nowhere is there any support at all in the entire scripture about Abraham's bosom, a great gulf between heaven and hell, or two compartments for the just and the unjust in Sheol

You fail to see personification and allegory of which Luke 16 is full of to prove a point...

WHAT POINT????

Proper stewardship to the Gentiles.

That's it. Nothing more than that.

Jesus summed it ALLLLLLL up by 'Abraham's words'

"They would not be convinced even if one ROSE FROM THE DEAD'

According to you and the Catholics, those in Sheol are not 'dead' and are not in their 'graves' (as you insist on separating the two).

Hence, Jesus was giving fictitous characters 'life' for the moral of the story to play out, not describing the afterlife.

 

[Drew]

Drew
When the wicked spirit goes back to God, what does God then do with that spirit?

Genesis 2:7 says

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I am told that the "breath of life" is how the word "ruach" ("spirit") is rendered. Correct me if I am wrong.

As I would expect all would know, I do not believe that the "spirit" that goes back to God is a consciousness-bearing thing. I think that in this context it means something like "the animating force" or "the life-energy", "the spark of life", etc. However, I do not mean these terms to be understood as some kind of technical statement about what I think the spirit is. If I could do that, I probably would be famous.

So, in an admittedly mysterious sense, I would say that God "retains" the life essence of each person and uses it to re-constitute them physically at some point in the future.

 

[Free]

To use an expression that a friend of mine uses, and I mean no disrespect at all Free - you are always a gentleman: "Right back at ya babe".

:D I agree.

Would the "immortal soul" supporter plead that Matthew 10:28 draws a distinction between body and soul and that this distinction warrants a conclusion that there exists an immortal soul that can survive bodily death?

What about the following statement that a person might make: "I like her body and her personality".

Does the drawing of this distinction - "body and personality" - mean that we can conclude that the speaker believes that the personality is an immortal entiry that can survive bodily death?

Yes, it does warrant that conclusion. There is a fatal problem with your analogy. If someone said "I like her body and her personality", it no more implies a body/personality distinction than "I like her body and her soul" implies a body/soul. What Matt. 10:28 states is entirely different:

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.

If you replace "soul" with "personality" in the above verse then it would be logical to conclude that the personality is a non-physical entity that survives death. If the soul was a part of the body, or simply meant "living being", then the soul would die when the body was killed and man could indeed kill the soul.

But if, as the verse states, man can kill the body but not the soul, then the soul necessarily is something distinct from the body. If man can kill A but not B, then it follows that B has not been killed by man. There is no other logical conclusion. This is further supported by the statement that God can kill both body and soul. The grammer leads to no other conclusion.

As I await your answer as to just when it is that man's soul is destroyed, I will give you two more ideas to consider:

1) I gave the passage as to the varying degrees of punishment the disobedient will receive - Luke 12:47-48:

Luk 12:47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.
Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating.

When do these degrees of punishment take place if the soul is destroyed at death?

2) I maintain that annihilation is not punishment at all, it is merely the cessation of life, nothingness. How is it possible to attribute something to nothing? This makes Jesus' and Paul's (et al) warnings of hell and punishment utterly meaningless, including that immediately above, if when the body dies the soul is annihilated.

 

[guibox]

Of course you are all wrongly assuming that Matthew 10:28 uses 'soul' as the Greeks (and obviously you fellow followers of Platonic theology) used it: some separate entity that enhouses the higher functions of man.

I have already shown that these 'higher functions' perish when man dies.

The word 'psuche' here is used the same as 'nephesh' which means 'life/living being'.

Man cannot destroy your eternity, your eternal consciousness. He can only destroy the body. God can take away your eternal life as well. The fact that God CAN shows that man doesn't have an undying, immortal soul. The other fact, is that if God CAN destroy the soul, but DOESN'T makes Him out to be the cruelest tryant ever served.

 

[Free]

I'm just going to jump in quickly.

Obviously then, Luke 16 is not the be all and end all of judgment theology nor intended to be a treatise on the afterlife.

- Nowhere is Hades a place of conscious torment in the scriptures (check all the other 10 instances of Hades in the NT)

So you are throwing out the one and keeping the ten? When you interpret the ten you must also include Luke 16 as part of the context of the rest.

Check all the other 10 instances (8 according to the ESV), indeed:

1. Matt. 11:23 says nothing in support of either position.
2. Luke 10:15 also says nothing.
3. Acts 2:27a is very important: "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades" - this implies that one's "soul" could be abandoned to Hades.
4. Acts 2:31: "he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." I don't want to draw too much from this one.
5. Rev. 1:8 says nothing of importance here.
6. Rev. 6:8 is interesting and again, I don't want to draw from it more than is warranted.
7. Rev. 20:13 - same as #6.
8. Rev. 20:14 doesn't say much on its own either.

So in the end your point about nothing being said in the other "10" instances of Hades does nothing to support your position and it may do more for the immortal, or even just immaterial, soul.

- Nowhere is there any support at all in the entire scripture about Abraham's bosom, a great gulf between heaven and hell, or two compartments for the just and the unjust in Sheol

I would argue that you are essentially wrong on your last two points, but regardlss, why must there be any of these things elsewhere in order for them to be true?

You fail to see personification and allegory of which Luke 16 is full of to prove a point...

WHAT POINT????

Proper stewardship to the Gentiles.

That's it. Nothing more than that.

Jesus summed it ALLLLLLL up by 'Abraham's words'

"They would not be convinced even if one ROSE FROM THE DEAD'

According to you and the Catholics, those in Sheol are not 'dead' and are not in their 'graves' (as you insist on separating the two).

Hence, Jesus was giving fictitous characters 'life' for the moral of the story to play out, not describing the afterlife.

So, you think it is a story, a parable? Let me use your preceeding line of argumentation and say: Nowhere in the entirety of the Gospels does Jesus ever use something unidentifiable or unknown to the Jews in his parables - coins, sheep, lost son, seeds, fields, pearls, etc.- so why should this be any different? If you can find something otherwise let me know.

In other words, in comparison with all other parables, there is nothing in this passage to indicate that it is a parable, a fictitious story.

 

[Free]

Of course you are all wrongly assuming that Matthew 10:28 uses 'soul' as the Greeks (and obviously you fellow followers of Platonic theology) used it: some separate entity that enhouses the higher functions of man.

I have already shown that these 'higher functions' perish when man dies.

The word 'psuche' here is used the same as 'nephesh' which means 'life/living being'.

Man cannot destroy your eternity, your eternal consciousness. He can only destroy the body. God can take away your eternal life as well. The fact that God CAN shows that man doesn't have an undying, immortal soul. The other fact, is that if God CAN destroy the soul, but DOESN'T makes Him out to be the cruelest tryant ever served.

This is just semantics. Firstly, just what do you mean by "eternity" and "eternal consciousness"? You have just agreed that they are distinct from the body. Secondly, the verse says nothing about "eternal life". If you want to define "soul" stritcly as "living being", then be consistent and define it as Genesis does - as being the entirety of living man - just as you have argued in the past. You are changing the meaning to make the verse say what you want.

 

[guibox]

This is just semantics. Firstly, just what do you mean by "eternity" and "eternal consciousness"? You have just agreed that they are distinct from the body. Secondly, the verse says nothing about "eternal life". If you want to define "soul" stritcly as "living being", then be consistent and define it as Genesis does - as being the entirety of living man - just as you have argued in the past. You are changing the meaning to make the verse say what you want.

Free, all our higher functions, our thoughts, emotions, feelings, all of these were described as man as a 'nephesh' the total functioning man. The 'ruach' the 'spirit' breathed in by God is what sparked this 'nephesh' to live. What we describe as mostly the brain function, the Hebrews described as the 'soul' the 'nephesh'.

We must understand their anthropological outlook and the words they used without imposing our own ideas based on the English 'soul'. None of these things that made man a conscious, existing being could survive on its own. Just like the carburator, spark plugs and pistons are useless on their own, they function only within the context of the engine.

Man's consciousness was part of his nephesh, but it wasn't something that existed outside of the body. It was PART of the functioning nephesh.

David makes it plain that when man dies, so does this consciousness, the whole nephesh (Psalm 146:4). However, man doesn't have to stay unconscious for eternity. That is what the resurrection is for.

 

[Drew]

But if, as the verse states, man can kill the body but not the soul, then the soul necessarily is something distinct from the body. If man can kill A but not B, then it follows that B has not been killed by man. There is no other logical conclusion. This is further supported by the statement that God can kill both body and soul. The grammer leads to no other conclusion.

I am glad you raised this point as I think it exposes a lack of clarity on my part.

I think that my argument, with some important qualifications as provided below, satisfactorily addresses this. Free, I know that you and others have the intellectual capacity to provisionally accept my assertion about the nature of soul in the Matthew passage - to at least see if it could be true and not be inconsistent with the passage. So with that provisional acceptance, let's proceed.

If the soul is non-conscious "information and / or 'energy'" that is held by God about someone who is otherwise sleeping in the grave (and we have texts about sleeping in the grave), then man can indeed kill the body and not yet the soul - in the make-up of our Universe, only God gets to "erase" that information / energy. The fact that the soul has not or cannot be killed by man is no justification for concluding that the soul is an immortal, never dying, conscious entity that survives death.

I should have been more clear that the "soul" as I describe it, of course "exists" after physical death. This energy / information is "held by God" - the spirit returns to God who gave it as per Ecclesiastes 12:7. So it exists. Here is the key point - there is absolutely no logical necessity (from Matthew 10:28) that this soul / spirit be

1. conscious
2. not subject to later destruction by God

So you are right to assert that the "personality" analogy is misleading - since of course man can indeed kill the personality when the body is killed.

I believe that with these clarifications I am now able to claim that Matthew 10:28 does not logically require that the soul be a "never-dying, conscious" entity that lives on after bodily death. With my understanding with what "soul" means, the text works perfectly well - man can kill the body and not the soul, God can kill both.

I publically apologize to Solo and others for some rather dismissive remarks I have made about the "conjunction" argument. My lack of clarity may have lead to misunderstanding.

 

[Drew]

If you want to define "soul" stritcly as "living being", then be consistent and define it as Genesis does - as being the entirety of living man - just as you have argued in the past. You are changing the meaning to make the verse say what you want.

Guibox, I hope you do not mind if I say something here. I think that both guibox and I fully accept and embrace the fact that Scripture uses the word "soul" in different senses. We have the text you mention above where "soul" refers to the "entirety of living man" and we have texts like Matthew 10:28 where it obviously cannot mean this. Of course, this constraint is imposed on]all of us on both sides of this discussion. Surely, you are not going to say that the word "soul" always means an "immaterial undying conscious entity". The Genesis text does not work with this. So we all have to accept that "soul" has various senses, and what you refer to as "changing the meaning to make the verse say what you want", I would characterize as "selecting a meaning from within the spectrum of known uses".

By contrast the person who believes in the existence of an immortal soul has to make this view work with texts like Ezekial 18:4 - "the soul that sins will die." The problem here is that whatever sense we accord to soul here, it will die. The solution sometimes is to claim that death means eternal conscious torment. Now that is an example of "changing the meaning" of a term, if ever there was one. Or they argue that this and numerous other references to the devouring and consumption and future non-existence of the lost - "they will be no more" - are references to the body alone. A very strange position, considering that they believe the soul to carry the conscious, sensing, thinking, feeling essence (remember the rich man in torment). They have to explain how all these texts about the annihilation of the wicked refer only to the relatively incidental "suit of flesh" that houses the soul. Again I would ask, who is really changing meanings here?

And this does not even touch the fact that all the evidence that I have gathered to this point, and I recently spoke with another person who has studied Hebrew culture, suggests that the Hebrews did not even have the concept of an immortal soul - this is a Greek idea. So to ascribe that sense to the word is certainly more of a "change" than anything guibox and I are doing, since it suggests that the intended meaning was a notion that was not in the minds of the Hebrews, let alone their language.

 

[jgredline]

OK,
I just finished scanning in these definitions of Soul....I should have done this earlier....But no place was I able to find a dictionary or lexicon that agrees with your position...Not a one....I dug out old books and have been reading and it still comes back to this....Only Cults hold to your view....Sorry, but that is the truth......


1soul \ˈsōl\ n
[ME soule, fr. OE sāwol; akin to OHG sēula soul] bef. 12c
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe
b cap Christian Science : god 1b
3 : a person’s total self
4 a : an active or essential part
b : a moving spirit : leader
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (ELEVENTH EDITION)

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Topic Finder: The Nature of the Human Race
The Nature of the
Human Race
Human nature has three components:
• The flesh represents the physical aspect of human (man’s) nature, which is mortal because of sin. The body (blood; bone; slave) is frail, human life is a mere vapor (breath; vanish), and human nature is carnal (fleshly).
• The spirit (breath) is that inward (belly; joint) part of people which gives them their identity and by which they think (mind; conscience; imagination), feel (heart; reins), and have life.
• The soul refers chiefly to that which is natural as opposed to that which is spiritual, and is the seat of the sentient element in human beings.
(These key terms express a wide range of meanings in the Old and New Testaments that cannot be adequately expressed in this compressed description of them. Each pertinent Vine entry should be examined closely to discover the nuances of meaning terms such as flesh, spirit, and soul expressed throughout the Bible.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

soul, a word in the Hebrew Bible with a wide range of meanings. God ‘breathed the breath of life’ into Adam and he became a ‘living soul’ (Gen. 2:7); Adam is living clay, as opposed to ordinary clay (Gen. 3:19). This life principle can ebb and flow; one may fear for one’s soul (Ezek. 32:10), risk one’s soul (Judg. 5:18), or take one’s soul (1 Kings 19:4). ‘Soul’ may refer to an individual person: Leah bore sixteen ‘souls’ (children) to Jacob (Gen. 46:18). For a Hebrew, ‘soul’ indicated the unity of a human person; Hebrews were living bodies, they did not have bodies. This Hebrew field of meaning is breached in the Wisdom of Solomon by explicit introduction of Greek ideas of soul. A dualism of soul and body is present: ‘a perishable body weighs down the soul’ (9:15). This perishable body is opposed by an immortal soul (3:1-3). Such dualism might imply that soul is superior to body.
In the nt, ‘soul’ retains its basic Hebrew field of meaning. Soul refers to one’s life: Herod sought Jesus’ soul (Matt. 2:20); one might save a soul or take it (Mark 3:4). Death occurs when God ‘requires your soul’ (Luke 12:20). ‘Soul’ may refer to the whole person, the self: ‘three thousand souls’ were converted in Acts 2:41 (see Acts 3:23). Although the Greek idea of an immortal soul different in kind from the mortal body is not evident, ‘soul’ denotes the existence of a person after death (see Luke 9:25; 12:4; 21:19); yet Greek influence may be found in 1 Peter’s remark about ‘the salvation of souls’ (1:9). A moderate dualism exists in the contrast of spirit with body and even soul, where ‘soul’ means life that is not yet caught up in grace.

Harper's Bible dictionary.

So you can call it Greek dualism if you like as it is what you do, but Like I and others have said....The bible uses the word soul / spirit interchangeably through out the scriptures, a fact that can't be denied.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul

Wisdom gives life to.
Prov 3:22 So they will be life to your soul And grace to your neck.

Destiny of one’s, dependent on response to Christ.
Mark 8:34–38 When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.â€Â

Described as the heart.
2 Cor 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Used interchangeably with spirit.
1 Thess 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
MacArthur, J.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Drew]

OK,
I just finished scanning in these definitions of Soul....I should have done this earlier....But no place was I able to find a dictionary or lexicon that agrees with your position...Not a one....I dug out old books and have been reading and it still comes back to this....Only Cults hold to your view....Sorry, but that is the truth......

First, the cult issue.

Consider the following statements made about prominent historical figures. I cannot vouch for the correctness of these statements, but here they are for the reader's consideration:

"According to Basil F. C. Atkinson, Martin Luther listed as the last of five cardinal errors of the papal Church the immortality of the soul, and was followed in this view by William Tyndale. (Ref. 6) Luther, in his Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull of 29 November, 1520, rejected this Roman Catholic doctrine, calling such an idea a "monstrous opinion" out of the "Roman dunghill of decretals"!"

"In 1548 John Calvin published his commentary on Paul's first letter to Timothy. He observed (at 1 Tim. 6:16) that the soul's coming into existence and its continuance depend entirely on God, so that "properly speaking, it does not have an immortal nature"; and in support of this he cited Acts 17:28."

"Thomas B. Strong in his Manual of Theology wrote in 1903: "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is precarious and obscure in a very high degree." (Ref. 9)."

Which cults were Calvin, Luther, Tyndale, and Strong members of?

Which cults are John Stott and Clark Pinnock members of?

 

[guibox]

jg, neither of your first two references support the immortality and separate existence of the soul. The term 'soul' was used to describe man as a functioning being both spiritually and cognitively. It was not a separate existence of a 'soul' that makes man a 'nephesh', it is the Hebrew anthropological way of describing what we now know as brain function, synapses, feelings and emotions.

Man IS a soul.

Your Harper's dictionary is vague and contradicting at best that can be summarized in this sentence: some texts give the impression but nothing is definitive.

I can find just as many sources that say opposite what you are trying to prove.

As for the 'soul' and 'spirit' being used to mean the same thing...as man as a functioning 'nephesh', they can be used interchangeably as the Hebrew's anthropological view was primitive enough that they attributed all the higher thinking functions of man to these two things.

However, they are not the same thing in nature. The 'ruach' makes man a functioning 'nephesh'.

 

[Drew]

1soul \ˈsōl\ n
[ME soule, fr. OE sāwol; akin to OHG sēula soul] bef. 12c
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe
b cap Christian Science : god 1b
3 : a person’s total self
4 a : an active or essential part
b : a moving spirit : leader
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (ELEVENTH EDITION)

This is supposed to be support for the notion that the soul is an immortal consciousness bearing entity that survives death?

If anything, these definitions damage your position (as I understand it).

If you think that definition 1 supports the "immortal conscious soul" position, you are clearly mistaken. An animating principle or an actuating cause need not be conscious entities.

In definition 2a, we are given no reason to believe that the "spiritual principle" is anything more than a "principle" - there is no necessity or implication of consciousness. I am not sure how the "god" definition helps you either.

Definition 3 refers to the totality of the human person and does not support the "immortal soul" idea.

An "active or essential part" (definition 4) need not be conscious. My car's transmission is an "active and essential" part of my car.

The "moral and emotional nature of human beings" (number 5a) has absolutely no inherent implication of continued existence after death.

The "quality that arouses emotion and sentiment" (5b) implies consciousness in this life, but in no way implies that such things survive death.

"Moral force" and fervor (5c) have no implication of immortality. "Spiritual force" only implies immortal existence beyond death if one comes to the term with connotation already in mind.

This set of definitions offers absolutely zero support to the immortal soul and, if anything, links the notion of "soul" to aspects of this present life.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
What those definition means is that they mean different things....By the sould being seperate of the body, the bible makes perfect sense....By your definition of the soul ''you make Jesus a Liar''....when Jesus said ''41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.

44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You? 45 Then He will answer them, saying, Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

But if we look at the ''way'' soul is used through out the whole counsel of God, it is used interchangeably....

So who are we to believe? You and Guibox?....NO

I will believe what Jesus said.....For I believe Jesus was and is telling the truth.....

As fr those theologians, please provide the context in what they are saying...

 

[Drew]

Drew.By your definition of the soul ''you make Jesus a Liar''....when Jesus said ''41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.

44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You? 45 Then He will answer them, saying, Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

It is almost as if you are not reading my posts.

We have been down this exact same road before but for the sake of possible latecomers, I will repeat. I have argued in multiple posts (as have others) that "everlasting punishment" refers to the finality and eternality of the punishment for sin which is, naturally enough, death. You say that I do not believe Jesus. Do you believe Paul's words in Romans 6:23 about the wages of sin being death?

Everlasting punishment in the sense that jgredline believes is basically ruled out by other scriptures, such as Romans 6:23 and the huge long list I posted earlier in this thread.

But, let's suppose that we ignore those and look at the Matthew text alone. People think that "everlasting punishment" means unending conscious existence and nothing else precisely because they bring that belief to the text.

It is obvious that there is another meaning - that the punishment is death and that it is everasting precisely because the person is dead / extinguished / gone / annihilated forever - their non-existence will never be reversed. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation and I challenge anyone to show otherwise, without making the obviously circular argument that punishment cannot mean extinction since it means eternal conscious existence.

In addition the view that I am proposing is arguably supported by the use of the term "everlasting punishment" versus "everlasting punishing"

So both your and my view are consistent with the text. How do we decide?

By looking at the Scriptures as a whole - and, as per the long list I have already published plus other reasons - the Scriptures teach annihilation.

 

[guibox]

Drew
So who are we to believe? You and Guibox?....NO

I will believe what Jesus said.....For I believe Jesus was and is telling the truth.....

As fr those theologians, please provide the context in what they are saying...

Well, jg...how about the Reformers and hundreds of others from their line throughout the ages that believe what Christ wrote. Look at what they say in context.

Quit your excuses and ignoring of posts and see that this doctrine is NOT a cultic doctrine and believed only by cults.

It's getting old, it is false and it does nothing to enhance your narrow view on the subject. Please access the following link and read through it so we can put this 'cult' nonsense to bed.

This list is merely scraping the surface. I can give you a link that gives much much more from all sorts of theologians, Greek scholars, church leaders and all else....none of who are 'cultists'.



Reformers against Immortality of the Soul

 

[Guest]

Drew - Genesis 2:16-17 "The Lord God commanded the man, saying "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

As we know in Genesis 3:6-8 that both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit.

Did they immediately die? Did they drop over dead? No.

So was God 'wrong' when he said that in the day that you "eat from it you will surely die.'? No. Therefore, the death referred to in Genesis is not a physical, finite death.

Enter Romans 6:23. The wages of sin is death. Referring to the same spiritual death as in Genesis.

Lastly - one of my guides in doctrine is the praticality of the doctrine, and if it leaves one longing after God and brings God glory.

Annihilism does none. It is niether praticial, makes one long after God, nor bring God glory.