Why wasn't Jesus eternally tormented?

[Drew]

...the whole story of the rich man and Lazarus is make-believe.... it is a parable.

I agree. I believe that context suggests that Jesus is critiquing the Jewish leadership through this parable and is in no way commenting on the nature of the afterlife. We need, I suggest, to be a little more generous in embracing the possibilities that 1st century people were capable of using carefully chosen literary devices.

 

[Drew]

When I say the human spirit is a part of your conscience, intuition and communion what is your response? knowing right from wrong, 'knowing' in your spirit that something is right or wrong/having intuition, worshiping God/having communion in the spirit. Do you know what right from wrong is? Have you ever felt intuition from the Holy Spirit? Have you felt like you had to worship God through the Holy Spirit. These things reflect your spirit.

My end question is does your spirit and soul line up with the spirit and soul of God? or are you worshiping false idols? Blessings.

By now, I suspect you know how I will answer. I agree that we have access to all the capabilities you describe here (i.e. knowing right from wrong, etc., etc). But that does not mean that 1st century (and earlier) Palestinans used the word "spirit" to refer to this particular ensemble of characteristics. I do believe in the existence of the human "spirit", and I am open to the possibility that it somehow plays a role in the manifestation of the characteristics you list. But that is not really the point. I am quite confident that there is no specifically Biblical evidence for the notion that we have a "spirit" that can give rise to any kind of conscious existence apart from the body.

I believe the writers of the Bible thought thus:

1. We all have bodies (this is obvious);

2. When God created Adam (and by extension all humans), He "infused" their bodies with a mysterious animating life force. This is the "spirit". However, without a body to be fused with, the spirit does not possess consciousness;

3. Human beings are fundamentally not neatly divisible into "parts". While it may useful to use the term "spirit" to refer to life force that animates our bodies and comes from God, this does not mean that a "spirit" can float around independent of a body and possess self-awareness.

I certainly aagree with the proposition that the believer is also "infused" with the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. And I don't see how that creates any kind of conceptual problem for the position I am defending.

 

[Drew]

But the people who wrote the bible were indwelled with the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit, where did it come from? You're still looking at the bible from a worldly perspective, culture..instead of an eternal perspective, Jesus.

This is not really relevant. I entirely agree that we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

Please explain to us how this means that the Jews used the word soul to refer to some immaterial component of the human person.

And this "you are using wordly reasoning" is an old ploy that won't work with me. I could say the same of you, suggesting that you are using secular Greek notions of a "soul" - "body" duality that is nowhere present in the Bible.

 

[Drew]

Another point worth raising: This whole idea that human "souls" and / or "spirit" can survive apart from the body really plays into the "gnostic" worldview that effectively denigrates the fundamental goodness of the physicality of creation. It makes the body seem to be an "accessory" that is not fundamentally important to who we are. I think that really goes against the grain of scriptural teaching on the value and worth of the physical world.

 

[Guest]

2. When God created Adam (and by extension all humans), He "infused" their bodies with a mysterious animating life force. This is the "spirit". However, without a body to be fused with, the spirit does not possess consciousness;

I'm not talking about having a soul and spirit on this earth as we live now, because it's obvious we do. but i'm referring to after we die and after judgement takes place. Do you think we will possess new immortal bodies on the new earth? Do you think these bodies will possess a spirit and soul that has functions? Remember now, we're talking about after we die.

And this "you are using wordly reasoning" is an old ploy that won't work with me. I could say the same of you, suggesting that you are using secular Greek notions of a "soul" - "body" duality that is nowhere present in the Bible.

You're not understanding, did Jesus not have a soul when he walked the earth? Was his soul worldly or heavenly? Was his soul temporary or eternal?

 

[Drew]

I'm not talking about having a soul and spirit on this earth as we live now, because it's obvious we do.

Its obvious that we have emotions, thoughts, consciences, etc. But it is certainly not obvious that these qualities can be localized to an immaterial "thing", such as the western concept of soul / spirit suggests.

....but i'm referring to after we die and after judgement takes place. Do you think we will possess new immortal bodies on the new earth? Do you think these bodies will possess a spirit and soul that has functions? Remember now, we're talking about after we die.

I believe we will have bodies.

I believe we will also have thoughts, consciences, a will, emotions, etc. But I do not believe it will the case that these attributes will "live" inside some non-physical thing such a soul or a spirit.

 

[Drew]

You're not understanding, did Jesus not have a soul when he walked the earth? Was his soul worldly or heavenly? Was his soul temporary or eternal?

No. Jesus did not have a soul.

No one "has" a soul - its not a thing, its a descriptive term. At least that is how the Jewish minds who wrote the Bible thought. You are, of course, free to believe in the western concept of a "soul". But I believe this is not a Biblical idea.

 

[P31Woman]

I dont know. hmm barnes isn't sure if its sheol or hell, Clarke says he went to preach to those souls in prison for their faith. yet neither really holds.

I go with the school of thought that Jesus went to preach to the angels that were imprisoned in Tartarus for their horrible sins back in Genesis 6.

that would be the jewish position but it would also include all souls in sheol.

Abraham's bosom isn't a real thought in jewish thinking. its a statement made by jesus. I have looked for it on chabad.org and barnes mentioned that it wasn't a literal place but a statement. that doesn't negate hell according to him.

Not necessarily. Sheol is a different place than where the disobedient angels of Genesis 6 were imprisoned. Yes i understand that Abraham's bosom is not an actual place...the whole story of the rich man and Lazarus is make-believe.... it is a parable.

Question: "Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable or an account of events that actually occurred?"​

Answer: Luke 16:19-31 has been the focus of much controversy. Some take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be a true, historical account of events that actually occurred; others consider it a parable or allegory.​

Those who interpret this narrative as a true incident have several reasons for doing so. First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.​

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.​

In contrast, others maintain that this story is a parable and not an actual incident that occurred. They point out that Jesus' standard practice was to use parables in His teaching. They do not consider the above arguments strong enough to warrant classifying the story as anything but a parable. Also, there are some aspects of the account that do not seem to agree with the rest of Scripture. For example, can people in hell and people in heaven see each other and speak to each other?​

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2P3H8QcOV​

 

[Guest]

You're not understanding, did Jesus not have a soul when he walked the earth? Was his soul worldly or heavenly? Was his soul temporary or eternal?

No. Jesus did not have a soul.

No one "has" a soul - its not a thing, its a descriptive term. At least that is how the Jewish minds who wrote the Bible thought. You are, of course, free to believe in the western concept of a "soul". But I believe this is not a Biblical idea.

Well of course the soul is not a thing, because a soul has life. it has substance to who you are as a human being; thought and emotion. You're still thinking in worldly terms, as in western concepts. Jesus did have a soul, did Jesus not feel emotions for sinners or when he was dying on the cross? Was Jesus capable of thinking? Having emotions and being able to think is not any western or eastern or whatever concept, it's not a concept. it's a fact of nature. What do you mean by western concepts, like indians and bears?

 

[jasoncran]

that would be the jewish position but it would also include all souls in sheol.

Abraham's bosom isn't a real thought in jewish thinking. its a statement made by jesus. I have looked for it on chabad.org and barnes mentioned that it wasn't a literal place but a statement. that doesn't negate hell according to him.

Not necessarily. Sheol is a different place than where the disobedient angels of Genesis 6 were imprisoned. Yes i understand that Abraham's bosom is not an actual place...the whole story of the rich man and Lazarus is make-believe.... it is a parable.

Question: "Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable or an account of events that actually occurred?"​

Answer: Luke 16:19-31 has been the focus of much controversy. Some take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be a true, historical account of events that actually occurred; others consider it a parable or allegory.​

Those who interpret this narrative as a true incident have several reasons for doing so. First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.​

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.​

In contrast, others maintain that this story is a parable and not an actual incident that occurred. They point out that Jesus' standard practice was to use parables in His teaching. They do not consider the above arguments strong enough to warrant classifying the story as anything but a parable. Also, there are some aspects of the account that do not seem to agree with the rest of Scripture. For example, can people in hell and people in heaven see each other and speak to each other?​

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2P3H8QcOV​

uhm I didn't feel like posting what barnes said on that chapter but that is what says about it.

 

[Drew]

Well of course the soul is not a thing, because a soul has life. it has substance to who you are as a human being; thought and emotion. You're still thinking in worldly terms, as in western concepts. Jesus did have a soul, did Jesus not feel emotions for sinners or when he was dying on the cross? Was Jesus capable of thinking? Having emotions and being able to think is not any western or eastern or whatever concept, it's not a concept. it's a fact of nature. What do you mean by western concepts, like indians and bears?

When I say the soul is not a thing, I mean it is not any kind of thing, living or otherwise.

Jesus felt emotion and thought - if you are reading what I am posting you would know I believe this. I still think you are stuck - unable to imagine the possibility that the residents of Palestine millennia ago might not use the word "soul" to denote such things.

Do not be mistaken - I have never denied the obvious truth that all people, Jesus included, have emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc.

I am simply saying that the Bible never says these characteristics are bundled up into a non-physical "soul" that can exist apart from the body.

Western concepts are concepts that we in the western world (Europe, North America) have accepted and use. Nothing to do with indians and bears.

 

[jasoncran]

drew, then why does Hebrew have five words for "soul" verses three in the greek?

 

[Drew]

drew, then why does Hebrew have five words for "soul" verses three in the greek?

I do not know, but of this I am fairly confident: there are no uses of the word "soul" that suggest any kind of non-physical entity that can exist apart from the body. I never intended to suggest that Jews used the word "soul" in only sense (i.e. to refer to the whole person). It was no doubt used other ways, but not to denote the kind of thing that many western Christians mean by the word "soul".

 

[Guest]

When I say the soul is not a thing, I mean it is not any kind of thing, living or otherwise.

Jesus felt emotion and thought - if you are reading what I am posting you would know I believe this. I still think you are stuck - unable to imagine the possibility that the residents of Palestine millennia ago might not use the word "soul" to denote such things.

Do not be mistaken - I have never denied the obvious truth that all people, Jesus included, have emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc.

I am simply saying that the Bible never says these characteristics are bundled up into a non-physical "soul" that can exist apart from the body.

Western concepts are concepts that we in the western world (Europe, North America) have accepted and use. Nothing to do with indians and bears.

If the soul isn't alive then what do you call it when you feel angry or happy, or when you generally think about things? The word soul is part of the dictionary, so what word are you using? We can use whatever word you want brother.

 

[Guest]

Jesus said man was body and soul. Matthew 10:28. A brain and a heart are organs in the body...they are flesh. What is the difference between a soul and a spirit?

Grappler, that's a really good scripture. very good. The difference between a soul and a spirit is what is in bold, the functions. is your spirit worshiping false gods or the living God..

The Human Spirit

According to the revelation of the Bible and the experience of believers, the human spirit can be said to have three main functions. These three functions are conscience (Rom. 9:1; 8:16), intuition (Mark 2:8), and communion (John 4:24). The conscience is the part of the spirit which distinguishes right from wrong and is not influenced by knowledge stored in the mind; it is rather a spontaneous direct judgment. The intuition is the “knowing†part of the spirit. All true knowledge originates not in the mind, but in the spirit. The revelations of God and the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition. A believer must, therefore, take care to heed these two aspects of his spirit: the speaking of his conscience and the teaching of his intuition.

Communion is the third function of the spirit, and is related to the worship of God. The soul is not competent to worship God. According to John 4:24, “God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.â€

The Human Soul

Not only does man possess a spirit which enables him to function in the spiritual realm; he also possesses a soul which is the organ of his self-consciousness. The soul is the seat of the human personality. The ingredients which make us human beings belong to the soul. The intellect, thought, ideals, love, emotion, understanding, decision, choice, and other like qualities are all associated with the soul. The three main functions of the soul are the will (Job 7:15), the mind (Lam. 3:20, RSV), and the emotion (2 Sam. 5:8; Deut. 6:5). The will is the instrument for making decisions and choices. The second function of the soul is the mind, the instrument for thinking. It is in this part of the soul that man reasons and has knowledge (Prov. 2:10). The third function of the soul is the emotion. This is the instrument of likes and dislikes. Through the emotions we are able to express love or hatred, joyfulness, anger, sadness, or happiness. A shortage in this area will render us insensitive. By a careful study of the Bible we cannot help but be impressed that these three primary functions of the personality belong to the soul.

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/bible-answer-man/appendix/are-soul-spirit-same.html

 

[jasoncran]

drew, then why does Hebrew have five words for "soul" verses three in the greek?

I do not know, but of this I am fairly confident: there are no uses of the word "soul" that suggest any kind of non-physical entity that can exist apart from the body. I never intended to suggest that Jews used the word "soul" in only sense (i.e. to refer to the whole person). It was no doubt used other ways, but not to denote the kind of thing that many western Christians mean by the word "soul".

the word nephesh chayeh. what does that mean? the jews believe that man has the souls of God/ angels and the body of the earth. when you plainly read genesis one it does support that. god was speaking to his creation to do, and do things. so he commanded the earth let US make man in our image. we are just that we have his attributes of emotions and the earthly flesh.

 

[Drew]

If the soul isn't alive then what do you call it when you feel angry or happy, or when you generally think about things? The word soul is part of the dictionary, so what word are you using? We can use whatever word you want brother.

I call these things attributes of me as an entire human person - I do not believe these characteristics - feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc. - can be localized to a thing called a "soul" that can survive the death of the body.

Again, what your dictionary tells you the world soul means is not relevant.

What is relevant is what the "dictionary" of the Palestinians thousands of years ago says about the word "soul".

To me, you seem stuck on believing that the 21st century meaning of the word "soul" has to be the same as the meaning another people had for the term in an entirely different culture thousands of years ago.

 

[Guest]

If the soul isn't alive then what do you call it when you feel angry or happy, or when you generally think about things? The word soul is part of the dictionary, so what word are you using? We can use whatever word you want brother.

I call these things attributes of me as an entire human person - I do not believe these characteristics - feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc. - can be localized to a thing called a "soul" that can survive the death of the body.

Again, what your dictionary tells you the world soul means is not relevant.

What is relevant is what the "dictionary" of the Palestinians thousands of years ago says about the word "soul".

To me, you seem stuck on believing that the 21st century meaning of the word "soul" has to be the same as the meaning another people had for the term in an entirely different culture thousands of years ago.

Hey man, you can call it whatever you want as long as you know that your emotions and thoughts are alive inside of you because your heart is pumping blood. Attributes, I can live with that. Ok, now what?

 

[Drew]

... he also possesses a soul which is the organ of his self-consciousness

I see no Biblical case for this.

Yes, there are Biblical statement that are open to such a reading. But, and this is the key point, they are open to other readings (interpretations) as well in which the soul is not the organ of self-consciousness.

Perhaps I am arguing a point that you are not concerned with.

If I agree with you that human beings have will, emotion, thought, conscience, feeling, imagination etc. will that be enough to assure you that I am engaged in high heresy?

Well, I believe all these things. I just don't think that if my body were suddenly reduced to dust in a nuclear blast, that these characteristics will continue to exist. I believe they will reappear when I am, God willing, resurrected in future. But I do not believe they will exist in the interim.

 

[Drew]

Ok, now what?

Well, maybe we are in violent agreement and we will have to think of something else to fight about .