The Soul Survives Death

atpollard · Mar 9, 2019

[MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION]

[Luke 16:19-31 NASB] "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the [crumbs] which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and [that] none may cross over from there to us.' "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Why did Jesus employ a lie concerning the afterlife in this parable? Could God not have constructed a parable based on the truth?
[Assuming that you are correct and the soul dies with the body.]

Josiah · Mar 10, 2019

Pedrito said:
[

Martin Luther may not be considered totally authoritative regarding this matter (especially by Lutherans), but he did have some interesting thoughts. It may be instructive to consider what he thought, and why.

Martin Luther believed in a “soul” that was inextricably bound to the body. He rejected the idea of the immortality of the soul.

Not that it matters, but please provide the credited quotes for this.... EXACTLY what did Luther write, when, where?

I always find it "fun" when people who reject what Luther held then reference him as some authoritative genius.... But let's see the verbatim quotes.... and the reference.

.

Pedrito · Mar 12, 2019

==============================================================================================

In Post #21, atpollard tendered the passage often referred to as “Lazarus and the Rich Man”. It is found in Luke 16:19-31.

Jesus recounts that a person named “whom God helps” is taken to Abraham’s bosom when he dies (a position of privilege in Jewish eyes), solely on the basis of his having been a poor person in life. Another person ends up in Hades when he dies (and is being tortured in flames there), solely on the basis of his having been a rich person when he was alive. The rich person asks Abraham to let the poor man place a drop of water on his tongue to ease his pain. Abraham tell him that’s not possible.
You can read the rest for yourselves… It is instructive.

atpollard followed the passage with:

Why did Jesus employ a lie concerning the afterlife in this parable? Could God not have constructed a parable based on the truth?
[Assuming that you are correct and the soul dies with the body.]

==============================================================================================

Luke 16:19-31 is a much quoted passage. It forms a cornerstone for people looking to support the “immortal soul” concept.

However, what they conveniently overlook is, that by invoking that passage as supportive, they contradict other doctrines that they themselves deem important.

For example:
- The stated basis for salvation in that passage, is a person’s wealth or poverty – not faith, nor even “predestination”;
- Spirit beings (non-physical souls) in the (supposed) unrighteous side of Hades, have tongues and eyes and ears;
- Spirit beings (non-physical souls) in the (supposed) righteous side of Hades, have tongues and eyes and ears;
- There is water available to place on those tongues;
- Spirit beings (souls) in the (supposed) righteous side of Hades and in the (supposed) unrighteous side of Hades, can see each other, hear each other, and talk to each other;
- Spirit beings (souls) in the (supposed) unrighteous side of Hades, are experiencing agony in flames before they are judged;
--- But it is normally taught that the wicked will experience fiery torture in a place called Gehenna, and not until after the resurrection and final judgement.

The problems are clear, and they invalidate the support claimed.

==============================================================================================

So Jesus wasn’t employing a lie. Nor was he expounding a literal truth. atpollard himself used the term “in this parable”.

Jesus, as a Jew, was laying out before His hearers (also Jews – unbelieving Pharisees in fact) a parable using metaphors that His hearers understood (metaphors from both the Hebrew culture and the surrounding pagan cultures). The internal evidence, if a person wants to acknowledge it, is telling. Jesus was presenting a predictive picture of what Paul recounts using different word pictures in Romans 11. (You could focus on say, Romans 11:10-24.)

Jesus was forewarning His hearers that they (the Jews) were to lose their preallocated, privileged position with God, in the foreseeable future.

==============================================================================================

atpollard · Mar 12, 2019

Pedrito said:
However, what they conveniently overlook is, that by invoking that passage as supportive, they contradict other doctrines that they themselves deem important.

Are you not fond of pointing out when people use distractions (like this) to avoid addressing the point raised?
Whether or not it contradicts other doctrines is irrelevant. The issue is Jesus presented it in a parable as if it was true when you claim death is the ultimate end of body and soul.

The problems are clear, and they invalidate the support claimed.

Actually, no they do not. The so called “problems” have no bearing on the claim.

So Jesus wasn’t employing a lie.

On this we agree.

Nor was he expounding a literal truth.

On this we disagree. Parables are all about expounding literal, spiritual truths.

Jesus, as a Jew, was laying out before His hearers (also Jews – unbelieving Pharisees in fact) a parable using metaphors that His hearers understood (metaphors from both the Hebrew culture and the surrounding pagan cultures). The internal evidence, if a person wants to acknowledge it, is telling. Jesus was presenting a predictive picture of what Paul recounts using different word pictures in Romans 11. (You could focus on say, Romans 11:10-24.)

Ignoring the invitation to chase the Romans 11 bunny trail, let us attempt to maintain our focus on parables just a little longer. It has been my observation that parables describe real things, often common things, that people can comprehend ... in order to reveal deeper spiritual truths. However, the objects in parables are all real things that are easily comprehended. In the “parable of the seed”, for example, “seeds” are a real thing. People can grasp the idea of a seed because they are familiar with real seeds. Jesus did not tell the parable of the Trufula Trees, because Trufula Trees are not real. When Jesus talks about the “hard ground” and birds eating the seed, these were also real objects and events. Jesus did not speak of planting Trufula Seeds in Rainbows. Stony soil, weeds, good soil ... these too are all real things that people could trust in and understand.

Look at other parables: fathers and sons are real, potters and clay are real, widows and mites are real, Pharisees and tax collectors are real.

So why does Jesus break his pattern and suddenly employ an imaginary afterlife, that Jesus knows is contrary to reality, in a parable?
The answer is simple, Jesus does not. Jesus alone is in a position to know the details of the afterlife and can present an accurate parable employing a small sample of his knowledge.

I invite you to present any other parable that is based on imaginary and contra-reality data. Absent any indication that Jesus suddenly just started “making things up”, I am convinced that Jesus’ description of the afterlife is as accurate as his description of the prodigal son.

Pedrito · Mar 17, 2019

==============================================================================================

The majority of churches in Christendom apply a certain “literal” meaning to Luke 16:19-31 (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man). They do that in order to claim support for the idea of an independent, disembodied life form that survives human death.

As pointed out in Post #23, the application of that particular “literal” meaning contradicts other doctrines that those very same churches within Christendom deem important. Those contradictions constitute a problem that shows the commonly promoted “literal” meaning to be invalid.

To that, the author of Post #24 replied:

Whether or not it contradicts other doctrines is irrelevant. The issue is Jesus presented it in a parable as if it was true when you claim death is the ultimate end of body and soul.
.
.
Actually, no they do not. The so called “problems” have no bearing on the claim.

So, the fact that Jesus is (as interpreted) promoting teachings that are contrary to established doctrines of Christendom, is unimportant – the contradictions have no significance. As long as the end result is support for the idea of an independent, disembodied life form that survives human death. Really?

==============================================================================================

The author of Post #24 then went on to point out that “parables describe real things, often common things, that people can comprehend ... in order to reveal deeper spiritual truths. However, the objects in parables are all real things that are easily comprehended.” He gave the example of “the parable of the seed” (the sower and the seeds), and directed our attention to the fathers and sons, potters and clay, widows and mites, Pharisees and tax collectors, as mentioned in other parables. He made the point that the mentioned symbols “are real”.

However, the author of Post #24 fails to mention the parables that Jesus told that were not to be understood. Parables of that type can be found in Matthew 13. The parable of the sower and the seeds is one of them. Yet the symbols used could easily be understood.

So, in response to that author’s “So why does Jesus break his pattern and suddenly employ an imaginary afterlife, that Jesus knows is contrary to reality, in a parable?”, we can simply observe that Jesus “broke his [[supposed]] pattern” more than once, to suit His purposes.

==============================================================================================

The symbols used by Jesus in the parable of “whom God helps” and the rich man, were clear to the hearers. They were easily understood. Jesus’ use of symbols from both within and outside of the Jewish religious culture, demonstrated to the hearers that it was indeed a parable – one with a specific, identifiable meaning. Any Jew and all Jews hearing the parable would have immediately identified who was meant by the beggar and the rich man. As stated before, the internal evidence is final, and would be obvious to any religious Jew even today. The problem is that because our background is based on pagan culture and belief (rather than on the culture and belief of Jesus and the apostles – information that was expunged), we fail to make the fundamental identifications.

Based on Holy Scripture – Holy Scripture as God had it penned – whom did Lazarus and the rich man represent? (Based on Holy Scripture, don’t forget.)

I suggest that God’s purposes would be better served by finding out (from Holy Scripture) what Jesus was really teaching, rather than retrospectively superimposing a meaning at odds with what Jesus was actually portraying. What He was portraying was indeed literal.

==============================================================================================

MennoSota · Mar 17, 2019

Pedrito said:
The majority of churches in Christendom apply a certain “literal” meaning to Luke 16:19-31 (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man). They do that in order to claim support for the idea of an independent, disembodied life form that survives human death.

As pointed out in Post #23, the application of that particular “literal” meaning contradicts other doctrines that those very same churches within Christendom deem important.
Those contradictions constitute a problem that shows the commonly promoted “literal” meaning to be invalid.

What specific contradictions are you talking about? Passages and explanation of each contradiction would be helpful.
Post #23 doesn't really do it. You're too scattered in thought so that your explanation makes no sense.

atpollard · Mar 17, 2019

Pedrito said:
The majority of churches in Christendom apply a certain “literal” meaning to Luke 16:19-31 (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man).

Blanket statements made by fiat do not count as proof of anything except YOUR OPINION.
What “certain” literal meaning do they apply?
What evidence do you have that it is applied by “the majority of churches”?
Which is more probable, that you are correct and the majority of Christiandom is wrong, or you are wrong and the majority of Christiandom is correct?

They do that in order to claim support for the idea of an independent, disembodied life form that survives human death.

Please provide SOME evidence that this is their motive and anything more than your unfounded opinion presented to puff up your unsupported claims.

As pointed out in Post #23, the application of that particular “literal” meaning contradicts other doctrines that those very same churches within Christendom deem important. Those contradictions constitute a problem that shows the commonly promoted “literal” meaning to be invalid.

Actually, the so called “contradictions” that you have presented so far reveal more of a lack of comprehension of the orthodox view than any sort of true “contradiction”.

So, the fact that Jesus is (as interpreted) promoting teachings that are contrary to established doctrines of Christendom, is unimportant – the contradictions have no significance. As long as the end result is support for the idea of an independent, disembodied life form that survives human death. Really?

Really. Your misinterpretation of orthodoxy has no relevance on Jesus describing an afterlife that you claim does not exist, but scripture claims does exist.

The author of Post #24 then went on to point out that “parables describe real things, often common things, that people can comprehend ... in order to reveal deeper spiritual truths. However, the objects in parables are all real things that are easily comprehended.” He gave the example of “the parable of the seed” (the sower and the seeds), and directed our attention to the fathers and sons, potters and clay, widows and mites, Pharisees and tax collectors, as mentioned in other parables. He made the point that the mentioned symbols “are real”.

... and I am still waiting for you to respond with another parable where Jesus lies about reality (as you claim he did with the afterlife).

However, the author of Post #24 fails to mention the parables that Jesus told that were not to be understood. Parables of that type can be found in Matthew 13. The parable of the sower and the seeds is one of them. Yet the symbols used could easily be understood.

Which one employed things that were not real.

So, in response to that author’s “So why does Jesus break his pattern and suddenly employ an imaginary afterlife, that Jesus knows is contrary to reality, in a parable?”, we can simply observe that Jesus “broke his [[supposed]] pattern” more than once, to suit His purposes.

I don’t see it. You have not presented any examples. Saying it does not make it so.

The symbols used by Jesus in the parable of “whom God helps” and the rich man, were clear to the hearers. They were easily understood. Jesus’ use of symbols from both within and outside of the Jewish religious culture, demonstrated to the hearers that it was indeed a parable – one with a specific, identifiable meaning. Any Jew and all Jews hearing the parable would have immediately identified who was meant by the beggar and the rich man. As stated before, the internal evidence is final, and would be obvious to any religious Jew even today. The problem is that because our background is based on pagan culture and belief (rather than on the culture and belief of Jesus and the apostles – information that was expunged), we fail to make the fundamental identifications.

Why the Gospel of Luke ... written for gentiles?

Based on Holy Scripture – Holy Scripture as God had it penned – whom did Lazarus and the rich man represent? (Based on Holy Scripture, don’t forget.)

I suggest that God’s purposes would be better served by finding out (from Holy Scripture) what Jesus was really teaching, rather than retrospectively superimposing a meaning at odds with what Jesus was actually portraying. What He was portraying was indeed literal.

Typical, you don’t really answer questions made to you, and you only “sort of” make a point ...

... actually, we have studied it and concluded that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said.
You might want to study the concept of “progressive revelation”.
(Did you know that the Messiah is GOD? The OT didn’t reveal that fact either.)

Pedrito · Mar 17, 2019

==============================================================================================

MennoSota (Post #26):

What specific contradictions are you talking about? Passages and explanation of each contradiction would be helpful.
Post #23 doesn't really do it. You're too scattered in thought so that your explanation makes no sense.

To answer the question above, and to see how much I am “scattered in thought”, why don’t we simply have another look at the clearly and precisely presented contradictions in Post #23? (Don’t forget that those contradictions are normally swept firmly under the carpet. So their being clearly brought to light has to be opposed by whatever means possible.)

==============================================================================================

From Post #23:

“Luke 16:19-31 is a much quoted passage. It forms a cornerstone for people looking to support the “immortal soul” concept.

However, what they conveniently overlook is, that by invoking that passage as supportive, they contradict other doctrines that they themselves deem important.

For example:
- The stated basis for salvation in that passage, is a person’s wealth or poverty – not faith, nor even “predestination”;
- Spirit beings (non-physical souls) in the (supposed) unrighteous side of Hades, have tongues and eyes and ears;
- Spirit beings (non-physical souls) in the (supposed) righteous side of Hades, have tongues and eyes and ears;
- There is water available to place on those tongues;
- Spirit beings (souls) in the (supposed) righteous side of Hades and in the (supposed) unrighteous side of Hades, can see each other, hear each other, and talk to each other;
- Spirit beings (souls) in the (supposed) unrighteous side of Hades, are experiencing agony in flames before they are judged;
--- But it is normally taught that the wicked will experience fiery torture in a place called Gehenna, and not until after the resurrection and final judgement.

The problems are clear, and they invalidate the support claimed.”

==============================================================================================

Those are direct and unequivocal teachings that emerge from the normal “literal” meaning given to Luke 16:19-31 – the meaning required to support the idea of an independent spirit life-form that survives human death.

So, is “Passages and explanation of each contradiction would be helpful” asking for Scriptures pertaining to the “normal” doctrines of Christendom? – i.e. the ones contradicted as precisely documented above?

I find it continually amazing, but not surprising, the lengths people will go to, to both defend beliefs that they cherish, and to try to suppress invalidating exposure of those beliefs.

So I simply ask again (from Post #25): “Based on Holy Scripture – Holy Scripture as God had it penned – whom did Lazarus and the rich man represent? (Based on Holy Scripture, don’t forget.)”

That is the absolute touchstone regarding Jesus' intended meaning of His presentation. It overrides all other arguments, no matter how eloquent.

Once again, from Holy Scripture, whom did Lazarus and the rich man represent?

==============================================================================================

Pedrito · Apr 2, 2019

==============================================================================================

In Post #11, MennoSota stated:

Ezekiel gives us a glimpse of the afterlife where the souls reside in the pit. (Note that John calls on this same imagery in Revelation.)

He followed that with a quote from Ezekiel (Ezekiel 32:18-32), which won’t be reproduced here, to conserve space.

It was good to see that he was able to find the verses he had formerly referred to, and that I was unable to find.

==============================================================================================

The key words found in that passage (having the sense of where the dead are) with their Strong’s reference numbers, are laid out below this main section.

It would appear that the passage is figurative in nature, using what could be termed flowery language to paint a vivid picture.

In some places, multiple words in the list are used in the same verse, and appear to be interchangeable in meaning. An analysis of action verbs in the passage reveals a similar use of multiple verbs in some verses, once again suggesting interchangeability.

==============================================================================================

Now, consider Verse 27: And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to hell with their weapons of war: and they have laid their swords under their heads The inconsistency of people having their weapons with them, and having swords under their heads, supposedly in a place where spirits reside, disappears if “the grave” is consistently understood in the passage. That in turn agrees with both the OT revelation and the NT apostolic teaching that dead people are dead-dead, and that they are awaiting restoration to life via resurrection.

And people could be forgiven for wondering how an entity, supposedly in a place where conscious spirits reside, can be surrounding someone’s grave, or be surrounded by graves. (Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

==============================================================================================

The Ezekiel passage, with its questionable translation, naturally lends itself to interpretation. Therefore:
- The passage can be used to support the post-apostolic idea of a conscious, independent, disembodied spirit being that survives human death; OR
- The passage can be seen to agree with the way death is described in the rest of Scripture – people die, and await reawakening to life via resurrection:
---- The resurrection that was made possible by the atoning, substitutionary death of the God-appointed Saviour.

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

Significant words found in the Ezekiel passage:
- H953 – בּוֹר bowr – pit hole – KJV: cistern, dungeon, fountain, pit, well:
--- Found in Verses 18, 24, 25, 29, 30;
- H4904 – מִשׁכָּב mishkab – a lying down, couch, bier, act of lying – KJV: bed((-chamber)), couch, lieth (lying), lying with:
--- Found in Verse 25;
- H6900 – קְבוּרָה קֶבוּרָה qbuwrah – grave, burial, burial site, sepulchre – KJV: burial, burying place, grave, sepulchre:
--- Found in Verses 23, 24;
- H6913 – קֶבֶר קִברָה qeber – grave, sepulchre, tomb – KJV: burying place, grave, sepulchre:
--- Found in Verses 22, 23, 25, 26;
- H7585 – שְׁאוֹל שְׁאוֹל sh'owl – sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit – KJV: grave, hell, pit:
--- Found in Verses 21, 27;
- H8482 –תַּחתי tachtiy – lowermost, lowest – KJV: low (parts, -er, -er parts, - est), nether (part):
--- Found in Verses 18, 24.

==============================================================================================

YourTruthGod · Apr 2, 2019

A Living Human: flesh + spirit = living soul

A Dead Human/no more soul: flesh - spirit = decayed body on earth and a spirit living in hell or heaven.

No such thing at this time as a soul going to heaven or hell.

No such thing as a soul ever going to heaven; spirits go to heaven, not souls.

For now, only the spirit goes to heaven or hell.

When we are resurrected from the dead, meaning our spirit is united with a new physical body...then that new soul can be thrown in hell, the final hell, the lake of fire; and the saved live on the new earth in their eternal body/soul on the new earth with God.

psalms 91 · Apr 2, 2019

YourTruthGod said:
A Living Human: flesh + spirit = living soul

A Dead Human/no more soul: flesh - spirit = decayed body on earth and a spirit living in hell or heaven.

No such thing at this time as a soul going to heaven or hell.

No such thing as a soul ever going to heaven; spirits go to heaven, not souls.

For now, only the spirit goes to heaven or hell.

When we are resurrected from the dead, meaning our spirit is united with a new physical body...then that new soul can be thrown in hell, the final hell, the lake of fire; and the saved live on the new earth in their eternal body/soul on the new earth with God.

This is wrong because the bible states that the spirit returns unto God from whence it came, it is the soul that is in danger as stated in many verses

YourTruthGod · Apr 2, 2019

psalms 91 said:
This is wrong because the bible states that the spirit returns unto God from whence it came, it is the soul that is in danger as stated in many verses

I am not sure how you disproved what I said.

Could you break down what I said and show exactly where I went wrong?

YourTruthGod · Apr 2, 2019

Our mind, our feelings, our conscious, that is our spirit. If anyone gets a modern English version Bible, you can easily see that whenever the bible talks about our soul, it is at that time concerned with our living body (our physical living body with its spirit).

Whenever the bible talks about our spirit, it is concentrating on our spirit, our spirit whether in our body or out of our body.

Whenever the bible talks about our body, it is speaking of a living physical body or a dead physical body.

A soul is a physical body alive with a spirit. The body is dead without the spirit (James 2:26), and the spirit lives on after death of the body.

Refer to 1 Thessalonians. We can see that God will sanctify us through and through, our whole spirit (spirit without a body), soul (spirit and body together), and our body (with or without our spirit/dead or alive). God truly sanctifies us through and through.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

YourTruthGod · Apr 2, 2019

I can't tell you how much I like talking about the life of the spirit after the death of the body. I am going to keep posting about it, and I hope the discussion picks up.

Our flesh bodies are made alive and called a living soul because of our spirit.

Our spirit and body work together, however, when our body dies our spirit lives on in consciousness.

Job 32:8 But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.

God's breath gives us our spirit within us, at conception.

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

James 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

I have proven with scripture that God's breath gives us our own spirit, and that spirit makes our flesh body to be called a living soul, and without our spirit, our body is dead.

A body without the spirit is dead James 2:26.

A body with the spirit is a living soul Genesis 2:7 KJV.

psalms 91 · Apr 3, 2019

YourTruthGod said:
I am not sure how you disproved what I said.

Could you break down what I said and show exactly where I went wrong?

What I disagree with is that the spirit can go to heaven or hell, it returns to God. It is the soul that goes to either place

YourTruthGod · Apr 3, 2019

psalms 91 said:
What I disagree with is that the spirit can go to heaven or hell, it returns to God. It is the soul that goes to either place

The spirit returns to God who then decides where the spirit goes. Only spirits can go to heaven. A soul is a body made alive by the spirit. A soul without the spirit is DEAD, a dead body.

James 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

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.

We can see from the scriptures that God formed man and it was just a dead lifeless body, but then God breathed a spirit into Adam's body and it became a soul.

As for heaven, only spirits can go to heaven; no flesh body can go to heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

YourTruthGod · Apr 3, 2019

We are flesh and spirit, which makes us a living soul.

Only spirits can go to heaven.

Flesh bodies with, or without the spirit cannot go to heaven.

Angels are spirits.

There are no souls in heaven, but rather spirits in heaven.

Spirits of angels are in heaven and spirits of humans are in heaven.

Pedrito · Apr 4, 2019

==============================================================================================

The discussion of the soul and spirit in recent Posts, highlights the confusion regarding the matter in the realm of Christendom (i.e. among the competing belief sets it embraces).

1. It may be worthwhile remembering that in both the Hebrew and Greek languages, the word translated “spirit” also means “breath”.

2. It is true that Man became a living soul when God breathed into him the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). But didn’t the psalmist say, Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.? (Psalm 146:1) What did he mean? And what did the Apostle Paul say in 1 Thessalonians 5:23?

3. In Genesis 2:7, did God breathe the breath of life into Man’s nostrils, or the spirit of life? Should Ecclesiastes 12:7 read: Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the breath shall return unto God who gave it.?

4. Could James 2:26 actually refer to the breath that is within Man, and without which Man has no life? For as the body without breath is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (The “the” in the often seen “without the spirit” is added by translators so that they can give the impression of a particular “spirit” for each person. It is not in the original Greek. The sometimes seen “without spirit” is awkward. “Without breath” is more natural, and matches our normal observation. But the word “breath” is assiduously avoided in most translations.)

5. Could it be the breath that returns to God in Eccleiasted 12:7? Especially in the light of Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 3:19? In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art , and unto dust shalt thou return.

6. In Luke 23:46, could Someone have actually said, "Father, into your hands I commit my breath. HHHHHHHHHH."?

7. But dare we argue with the Council of Constantinople in 869? It declared that the soul and the spirit are the same.

==============================================================================================

Of course, in the Simple, Original, Apostolic Gospel, all is clear. There is no conflict. But we will not get to that, until what the Holy Scripture clearly states about the existence of an independent, disembodied, conscious, spirit life form that survives human death (or what it doesn’t state) is acknowledged.

==============================================================================================

psalms 91 · Apr 4, 2019

Pedrito said:
==============================================================================================

The discussion of the soul and spirit in recent Posts, highlights the confusion regarding the matter in the realm of Christendom (i.e. among the competing belief sets it embraces).

1. It may be worthwhile remembering that in both the Hebrew and Greek languages, the word translated “spirit” also means “breath”.

2. It is true that Man became a living soul when God breathed into him the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). But didn’t the psalmist say, Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.? (Psalm 146:1) What did he mean? And what did the Apostle Paul say in 1 Thessalonians 5:23?

3. In Genesis 2:7, did God breathe the breath of life into Man’s nostrils, or the spirit of life? Should Ecclesiastes 12:7 read: Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the breath shall return unto God who gave it.?

4. Could James 2:26 actually refer to the breath that is within Man, and without which Man has no life? For as the body without breath is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (The “the” in the often seen “without the spirit” is added by translators so that they can give the impression of a particular “spirit” for each person. It is not in the original Greek. The sometimes seen “without spirit” is awkward. “Without breath” is more natural, and matches our normal observation. But the word “breath” is assiduously avoided in most translations.)

5. Could it be the breath that returns to God in Eccleiasted 12:7? Especially in the light of Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 3:19? In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art , and unto dust shalt thou return.

6. In Luke 23:46, could Someone have actually said, "Father, into your hands I commit my breath. HHHHHHHHHH."?

7. But dare we argue with the Council of Constantinople in 869? It declared that the soul and the spirit are the same.

==============================================================================================

Of course, in the Simple, Original, Apostolic Gospel, all is clear. There is no conflict. But we will not get to that, until what the Holy Scripture clearly states about the existence of an independent, disembodied, conscious, spirit life form that survives human death (or what it doesn’t state) is acknowledged.

==============================================================================================

The council was wrong and ignored scripture

Pedrito · Apr 4, 2019

==============================================================================================

Post #39 (psalms 91):

The council was wrong and ignored scripture

No argument from me about that.

But the pertinent question is, what other Church Councils got things wrong?

And if a Council got one thing wrong, while supposedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can anything be trusted that came out of that Council? (The question pertains to both matters of doctrine and more worldly matters.)

How many Councils would remain intact, were that investigation to be undertaken?

I don’t have the time to do that exercise, but maybe someone else has.

The results could be interesting.

==============================================================================================

The Soul Survives Death

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member