One myth leads to another

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: UFOdanger

The Essenes are only alluded to in the New Testament as 'Nazarenes' and 'doctors of the Law,' but the group itself, the one that produced Jesus, was wiped out by Catholicism.

There is nothing from Essene dead sea scrolls about Jesus from their 250 B.C. to 68 A.D scrolls. There are also no historic writings from the first century that mention Jesus apart from the historian Josephus that scholars believe were added at a latter date. But scholars believe that historic references to John the baptist are true. So perhaps John the baptist is the key to finding the greater truth about Jesus.

There is a small religious group today called Mandeans that tell that John the baptist was a Mandaean that taught baptism by water of which they still practise today. They tell they were ejected from the Jordan Valley by Orthodox Jews in 2AD. They also believe Jesus was an apostate Mandaean and false prophet.

Jesus began as a member, quite possibly a favored member, of the John movement is clear in the Synoptics, though the importance of John for Jesus is progressively reduced and attenuated in each succeeding Gospel. It might be better to say that Jesus was an apostate Johnite, with the Mandaeans being themselves, though here taking the Johnite viewpoint, were themselves sectarian Johnites. With that qualification, some Mandaean legends would seem to give us a John-eye view (and a hostile view it is) of the early Jesus movement.
link

So it appears Saul/Paul was responsible for spreading the words of a small movement that had split from the Mandaeans and turned it into a new religion. Rome likely embellished the story (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection etc) to promote themselves themselves as Gods spokesman on earth,

The original Yeshua might have been spiritually enlightened but we have no guarantee today that the words that are attributed to him came from his mouth or from the minds of men motivated by personal gain.

I guess it comes down to ones instincts. What to believe, what not to believe.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Heresiarch
In defense of the Saul/Paul of the NT, ... Saul/Paul was an apostle of the Sanhedrin before his conversion to the Nazarene sect.

Ok, maybe one last comment cause as a defense of Paul that is a rather pitiful start and telling again regarding what people here like to do (it reminds me a little bit of YEC vs Evolution debates).

To outsiders Christianity was referred to as “The Way” (Ac 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), and opponents called it “the sect of the Nazarenes” or just “this sect.”—Ac 24:5; 28:22.

source: Christian, Insight, Volume 1

A synonym for "sect" = "cult".

From the article about the manipulation of information I shared earlier:

For example, in recent years a powerful antisect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, created the image of an enemy, and reinforced existing prejudices against religious minorities. Often, “sect” becomes a catchword. “‘Sect’ is another word for ‘heretic,’” wrote German Professor Martin Kriele in 1993, “and a heretic today in Germany, as in former times, is [condemned to extermination]—if not by fire . . . , then by character assassination, isolation and economic destruction.” The Institute for Propaganda Analysis notes that “bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, . . . sent [people] to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen.”

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano. For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, of February 15, 1999, reported the following from Moscow: “When three girls committed suicide in Moscow last week, the Russian media immediately suggested they were fanatical followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Note the word “fanatical.” Naturally, people would be fearful of a fanatic religious organization that supposedly drives young people to suicide. Were these unfortunate girls really connected with Jehovah’s Witnesses in some way? The Globe continued: “Police later admitted the girls had nothing to do with [Jehovah’s Witnesses]. But by then a Moscow television channel had already launched a new assault on the sect, telling viewers that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had collaborated with Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany—despite historical evidence that thousands of their members were victims of the Nazi death camps.” In the mind of the misinformed and possibly fearful public, Jehovah’s Witnesses were either a suicidal cult or Nazi collaborators!

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

From Galatians, Letter to the, Insight, Volume 1:

The Judaizers were crafty and insincere. (Ac 15:1; Ga 2:4) Claiming to represent the congregation in Jerusalem, these false teachers opposed Paul and discredited his position as an apostle...
To accomplish their objective, they claimed that Paul’s commission came to him secondhand, that it was only from some men prominent in the Christian congregation—not from Christ Jesus himself. (Ga 1:11, 12, 15-20) They wanted the Galatians to follow them (4:17), and in order to nullify Paul’s influence, they had to paint him first as no apostle...
They were trying to make a sort of fusion religion of Christianity and Judaism, not denying Christ outright...

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NW):

What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

Quoting Seede from another thread:

I call myself Christian...

So you're going to supposedly "defend" Paul by using the same slanderous propagandistic phrase for Christianity as the opponents of Christianity (and Paul) used in Paul's time? But of course, when I even dare mention the word hypocricy in response to someone claiming Paul is a hypocrite, I'm the one "trying to insult people" according to Heresiarch rather than just trying to be honest with people how these types of comments come across and how it helps me understand the bible's descriptions about this behaviour (in the hopes it might wake some people up, including those who are unaware of their own hypocricy which might be unintentional)?

The whole thing just got more ironic when I just saw Heresiarch quote Paul in support of his views regarding baptism (in the 1st thread he started on ATS one day before mine). But of cooouuurse...I'm "trying to insult people" just for even mentioning the word hypocricy so other readers here who post a bit less distracting things might think about that word for a moment before they spend too much time reading and studying things that won't benefit them.

originally posted by: glend
There are also no historic writings from the first century that mention Jesus apart from the historian Josephus that scholars believe were added at a latter date.

And we/re back to (the boldness matches)...

2 Timothy 4:3,4 (NW):

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

1st * = Or “healthful; beneficial.”
2nd * = Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”

And yet more distractions with myths/false stories, misinformation and misunderstandings away from the truths shared about the myths pointed towards in the OP, of which there are 6 examples, one of which was responded to by someone (and in my related 2nd comment there are more myths exposed that are of benefit to be aware of). At least we're still sticking on-topic of 2 Timothy 4:3,4 somewhat. Perhaps I should just let this demonstration continue. But I wouldn't mind someone demonstrating they actually had a look at the other 5 myths.

whereislogic

TextThe whole thing just got more ironic when I just saw Heresiarch quote Paul in support of his views regarding baptism (in the 1st thread he started on ATS one day before mine). But of cooouuurse...I'm "trying to insult people" just for even mentioning the word hypocricy so other readers here who post a bit less distracting things might think about that word for a moment before they spend too much time reading and studying things that won't benefit them.a reply to:

Your story of three little girls is quite removed from the theological aspect of acceptance of the Apostle Paul. You have brought nothing new to the table of Christianity with your own preference of non related stories of inconsequential events. The entire matter is confirmed by the NT letters and not your own readings of news clips from around the world or self proclaimed intellects.

Address the theological facts that are presented if you have a mind to do so. Saul/Paul did spend time with the Jerusalem synagogue under James and he did meet the criteria of a missionary. Paul spent much time in traveling with Peter and both were together in Rome. I challenge you to address the following in contextual understanding and set your hatred and vain ramblings aside.

2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Did not Peter pen this himself? And in the same letter did not Peter write ---

2Peter 2:1-3
(1) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
(2) And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
(3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Is it not theological fact that Peter wrote of false prophets and then praised the Apostle Paul? Both in the same letter? Why then did Peter not condemn Paul as a false prophet as you seem to infer? You condemn Paul and make light of bountiful evidence that you yourself are wrong and full of mischief. But instead of agreeing with the Christ you present yourself as a false teacher. Your understanding of scripture is appalling and a misfit to Christianity.

originally posted by: Seede
Why then did Peter not condemn Paul as a false prophet as you seem to infer?

Do you think you're still talking to Heresiarch or something?

Or are you intentionally trying to twist what I'm saying so badly that you're painting what Heresiarch and many others here are doing to Paul on me? While you play the knight in shining armor in defense of Paul while doing exactly what I said at the end and beginning of my comment to you, suggesting that he joined a cult/sect. I know you're not defending Paul, the bible and Christianity, maybe that's the problem for the way you talk about me and try to lure me into playing this weird game.

Sorry, this is getting to weird for me.

a reply to: whereislogic

Text The whole thing just got more ironic when I just saw Heresiarch quote Paul in support of his views regarding baptism (in the 1st thread he started on ATS one day before mine). But of cooouuurse...I'm "trying to insult people" just for even mentioning the word hypocricy so other readers here who post a bit less distracting things might think about that word for a moment before they spend too much time reading and studying things that won't benefit them.

You should learn to realize what you say and how you say it. I honestly do not believe that you know what you have written.

Did you not chide me in this following quote? --

So you're going to supposedly "defend" Paul by using the same slanderous propagandistic phrase for Christianity as the opponents of Christianity (and Paul) used in Paul's time? But of course, when I even dare mention the word hypocricy in response to someone claiming Paul is a hypocrite, I'm the one "trying to insult people" according to Heresiarch rather than just trying to be honest with people how these types of comments come across and how it helps me understand the bible's descriptions about this behaviour (in the hopes it might wake some people up, including those who are unaware of their own hypocricy which might be unintentional)?

Now in that quote I have read that your accusation towards me was one of hypocricy in defense of the Apostle Paul. . There it is in your quote. You accuse me of using the same propaganda in defense of Paul as those who use propaganda against Paul. Yet you show no scripture to demonstrate your accusation. I challenge you once again to address the quotes of which I presented to you of 2nd Peter which Peter blesses Paul as a man of God and not a false prophet.

All you have done is claim that you are a victim of misunderstanding. Now if I have read your quote wrong then please explain what your point is. A source is supposed to be a fact related to the subject matter and not a spiel from another persons opinion. Now I realize that we are in the realm of theology and within that realm we discuss theology as fact even though it may not be fact in reality. Nevertheless the NT is accepted by a number of sects or denominations and within that structure we are discussing a man named Saul/Paul as to whether he is or was sent out by Christ Jesus. Show me the myth in that respect so that I may be corrected.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Heresiarch
In defense of the Saul/Paul of the NT, ... Saul/Paul was an apostle of the Sanhedrin before his conversion to the Nazarene sect.

To outsiders Christianity was referred to as “The Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), and opponents called it “the sect of the Nazarenes” or just “this sect.”—Acts 24:5; 28:22.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NW):

"What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun."

It's not a defense of Paul if you use the same terminology for Christianity as the opponents of Christianity and Paul used to describe what you call:

...his conversion to the Nazarene sect.

And your:

I call myself Christian...

Does not compute for me with the above usage of the synonym for cult. However, your desire to talk endlessly about the same subjects chosen by Heresiarch and UFOdanger without sharing anything particularly useful or showing how what they're doing has been done before, even doing some of it yourself as I've just demonstrated, and constantly picking on something in my comments to find some disagreement with, makes a little bit more sense to me. If that is what you rather have this thread focussed on rather than the 6 myths discussed in the OP, and the evolutionary myths discussed in my 2nd comment. And how they relate to the bible verses used in both comments or in the articles linked to. None of which has been discussed so far... (at least not by you, Heresiarch, UFOdanger, windword, glend, Klassified and All Seeing Eye).

Just another thread debating Paul's credibility, talk about Essenes and gnostics, and a version of Pontius Pilatus' cynical "What is truth?" question and way of thinking, as if you can't figure it out anyway (sort of a philosophy of vagueness or a form of agnosticism that embraces ignorance and going wherever the wind blows). I won't even mention who that was regarding the last way of thinking cause then I'll probably get complaints again about making accusations as people are expressing their philosophies about reality and/or the bible unrelated to the thread other than adding more myths or just distracting information.

a reply to: whereislogic

One Myth Leads to Another “LOOK out,” wrote the apostle Paul to Christians living in the latter half of the first century C.E. What was he warning against? “Perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.”—Colossians 2:8.

Now that you have skirted the entire OP by using other opinions let us hear your own opinion and in clear and precise language. Not that most do not already realize your intent as the JW's have taught you.

Let us start with the myth that Paul wrote Colossians 2:8 which he nor Timotheus wrote that letter of Colossians to Qolasiym from Rome. The authors of that work were Tychicus and Onesimus. It is a pseudepigraphal work and not of which you have quoted from above.

Your claim of the soul being the body is a very well known and true intent of Judaism. But you did not not complete that thought whether it be intentional or simply ignorance. Firstly you are trying understand Greek philosophy with Hebrew philosophy and interpreting that into English and calling that unfinished understanding as myth. That is absurd and very foolish.

Now let us complete that entire Hebrew to English interpretation which you call a myth.

Your JW interpretation is ---
Genesis 1:26 And God* went on to say: “Let us+ make* man* in our image,*+ according to our likeness,+ and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”

The Masoretic twxt of the KJV is --
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The portion that you left out was that portion of likeness and it was for a very good reason that you did so. As is well understood in Hebrew philosophy the soul and spirit are two distinct observances and that the likeness was the Spirit God.

JW interpretaton
Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust*+ from the ground+ and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life,*+ and the man came to be a living soul.

Masoretic text from KJV
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.

The man Adam was formed as a dead soul. A soul or body with no terrestrial life, The Spirit God breathed into the dead soul and the dead soul became a living soul. That is the likeness of which Moses shows us in Genesis 1:26--

Then what is the image? The image is that image of the invisible Spirit God. What would that be? That would be the Begotten Son of God called the Logos or Word. This would be that which you deny and call one of your six myths. The image is well versed in John 1:1-5 of which your bible has changed to suit your doctrine.

The word soul is used very loosely by the Greeks simply because they are filled with a philosophy far different than the Hebrews. Even so, it is well understood in contextual understanding that soul, body and spirit is also used very loosely. The Hebrews evolved into the belief that the body will most certainly die. Any fool can see that. But what most cannot see is that the unworthy spirit (likeness) remains in the confinement of Sheol while the sanctified spirit (likeness) will enjoy the bundle of life. Regardless of what you want to believe, I am telling you what we as Christian Jews believe and interpret from Tanakh.

This sanctified spirit is immortal. The unworthy spirit is not immortal and is destroyed as a second death. There are some Jews who view this far differently than do other Jews but all agree that the spirit of a soul will be judged as worthy or unworthy in a final judgement. Some will believe that a sanctified spirit will enjoy a bodiless existence while others believe a new body or covering will be given to the sanctified. Then there are some Jews of the Sadducee's sect that will not accept any sort of afterlife.

As you now can understand that your people have altered both Hebrew and Greek philosophy to suit your own doctrine with word change without autographs. Very dangerous and misleading to say the least. Therefore the only recourse I have is to try to explain to you that your presentation of myth is a myth in itself.

In relation to this, our sciences of today are led to believe that the brain and mind are two very distinct elements. The mind (likeness) is separated from the brain (image) in that it is proven that the mind can be isolated from physicality. As the soul dies and returns to its own elements the mind continues to exist. The mind is that likeness or spirit of life and is believed to be immortal or everlasting. In your belief that a soul is not immortal is correct but not completely presented.

a reply to: Klassified

Star and flag for you sir!

a reply to: Seede

“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.” - Archbishop Fulton Sheen

In fact the Roman Catholic organization did not come into prominence till after they slaughtered the remaining true Christians in 135 CE. and presented it as their own form of a religion

Where do you get your information from? Jack Chick? "True Christians"? So the disciples of the disciples don't count?

ATS cracks me up on all these "facts" that "everyone knows" about "Roman" Catholicism.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic
Your claim of the soul being the body is a very well known and true intent of Judaism. But you did not not complete that thought whether it be intentional or simply ignorance. Firstly you are trying understand Greek philosophy with Hebrew philosophy and interpreting that into English and calling that unfinished understanding as myth.

First a straw man, then a somewhat puzzling ad hominem perhaps, if that's the right description (what thought of mine would that be that I didn't complete? Could you even quote me on anything about that subject since I haven't even had the chance to respond to someone about that subject? It's like you're putting claims in my words rather than just words in my mouth, that's original I'd say if I hadn't seen it before as described in Ecclesiastes 1:9) and then a completely inaccurate red herring. I hope you and those interested in a response understand that it's not encouraging to want to respond to the rest when someone is doing this

as they find ways to diss the bible [check], diss Paul in particular [check] (at least on this subforum) and diss God in favor of their own myths and interpretations of the bible [check], appealing to ancient fallible philosophers like Ireneaus in the process [check]...

Allbeit the last one without naming any specific philosophers this time but keeping it nice and vague and using the phrase "As is well understood in Hebrew philosophy..." without providing any details as to which Hebrew philosophers you're referring to, what they exactly believed, or perhaps more importantly, why we should care. Followed by a rather vague statement about the soul and spirit being "two distinct observances" without specifying anything about or leaving out historical facts such as:

Soul

Definition: In the Bible, “soul” is translated from the Hebrew neʹphesh and the Greek psy·kheʹ. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. To many persons, however, “soul” means the immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. Others understand it to be the principle of life. But these latter views are not Bible teachings.

What does the Bible say that helps us to understand what the soul is?

Gen. 2:7: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Notice that this does not say that man was given a soul but that he became a soul, a living person.) (The part of the Hebrew word here rendered “soul” is neʹphesh. KJ, AS, and Dy agree with that rendering. RS, JB, NAB read “being.” NE says “creature.” Kx reads “person.”)

1 Cor. 15:45: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (So the Christian Greek Scriptures agree with the Hebrew Scriptures as to what the soul is.) (The Greek word here translated “soul” is the accusative case of psy·kheʹ. KJ, AS, Dy, JB, NAB, and Kx also read “soul.” RS, NE, and TEV say “being.”)

1 Pet. 3:20: “In Noah’s days . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” (The Greek word here translated “souls” is psy·khaiʹ, the plural form of psy·kheʹ. KJ, AS, Dy, and Kx also read “souls.” JB and TEV say “people”; RS, NE, and NAB use “persons.”)

Gen. 9:5: “Besides that, your blood of your souls [or, “lives”; Hebrew, from neʹphesh] shall I ask back.” (Here the soul is said to have blood.)

Josh. 11:11: “They went striking every soul [Hebrew, neʹphesh] that was in it with the edge of the sword.” (The soul is here shown to be something that can be touched by the sword, so these souls could not have been spirits.)

Where does the Bible say that animals are souls?

Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 25: “God went on to say: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls* . . . ’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. . . . And God went on to say: ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds . . . ’ And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind.” (*In Hebrew the word here is neʹphesh. Ro reads “soul.” Some translations use the rendering “creature[s].”)

Lev. 24:17, 18: “In case a man strikes any soul [Hebrew, neʹphesh] of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul [Hebrew, neʹphesh] of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul.” (Notice that the same Hebrew word for soul is applied to both mankind and animals.)

Rev. 16:3: “It became blood as of a dead man, and every living soul* died, yes, the things in the sea.” (Thus the Christian Greek Scriptures also show animals to be souls.) (*In Greek the word here is psy·kheʹ. KJ, AS, and Dy render it “soul.” Some translators use the term “creature” or “thing.”)

Do other scholars who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that this is what the Bible says the soul is? [whereislogic: not an appeal but a comparison, before anyone feels like nitpicking]

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·kheʹ] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

“The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

Can the human soul die?

Ezek. 18:4: “Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” (*Hebrew reads “the neʹphesh.” KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy render it “the soul.” Some translations say “the man” or “the person.”)

Matt. 10:28: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul [or, “life”]; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul* and body in Gehenna.” (*Greek has the accusative case of psy·kheʹ. KJ, AS, RS, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, and NAB all render it “soul.”)

Acts 3:23: “Indeed, any soul [Greek, psy·kheʹ] that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.”
...

Continued in next comment. Source:

Soul, Reasoning from the Scriptures

continuation from last comment:

Is the soul the same as the spirit?

Eccl. 12:7: “Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit [or, life-force; Hebrew, ruʹach] itself returns to the true God who gave it.” (Notice that the Hebrew word for spirit is ruʹach; but the word translated soul is neʹphesh. The text does not mean that at death the spirit travels all the way to the personal presence of God; rather, any prospect for the person to live again rests with God. In similar usage, we may say that, if required payments are not made by the buyer of a piece of property, the property “returns” to its owner.) (KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy all here render ruʹach as “spirit.” NAB reads “life breath.”)

Eccl. 3:19: “There is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit [Hebrew, ruʹach].” (Thus both mankind and beasts are shown to have the same ruʹach, or spirit. For comments on verses 20, 21, see page 383.)

Heb. 4:12: “The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul [Greek, psy·khesʹ; “life,” NE] and spirit [Greek, pneuʹma·tos], and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Observe that the Greek word for “spirit” is not the same as the word for “soul.”)

Does conscious life continue for a person after the spirit leaves the body?

Ps. 146:4: “His spirit [Hebrew, from ruʹach] goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (NAB, Ro, Yg, and Dy [145:4] here render ruʹach as “spirit.” Some translations say “breath.”) (Also Psalm 104:29)

What is the origin of Christendom’s belief in an immaterial, immortal soul?

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”—Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”—Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

See also pages 100-102, under the heading “Death.”

Note that in the quotations of the previous comment regarding the statements in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, The New Encyclopædia Britannica and The Jewish Encyclopedia that it shows that all of these scholars or teachers (using the word from 2 Timothy 4:3) pretty much are on the same page regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' view on this matter. But it's nicely hidden from the adherents of Roman Catholicism, Judaism and those who admire the philosophical naturalists that produced The New Encyclopædia Britannica which is viewed as a scientific work, i.e. those who are into 'science'; behind a wall of an overload of information and flow of persuasive messages about other subjects or in the form of excuses when the topic does come up and

by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.

Another line from:

The Manipulation of Information

Genesis 3:4 (NW):

At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die."

Ecclesiastes 1:9, "...nothing new under the sun."

a reply to: IsidoreOfSeville

Where do you get your information from? Jack Chick? "True Christians"? So the disciples of the disciples don't count? ATS cracks me up on all these "facts" that "everyone knows" about "Roman" Catholicism.

Glad you're able to laugh of this.

Dividing to be conquered, doing the adversary's work, and quoting Tim..

So sad, all there is to it is yeah, people will claim that dismissing God's word will make them gods (genesis 3:5)
or that Adam's maker is a monkey (Wardin 101).

Refuse to be divided: enjoy Chick tracts, they do crack me up with the style, and often do contain valuable information, let's remember not to throw the baby with the bathwater.

Jack Chick has helped many people who had been purposefully separated from the light of the word of god through deceptive practices including naming places of sin and false testimony and oppression "churches".

Just as saying an explosion is "the creator" is named "science" nowadays.

A classic technique, sadly still efficient. Let us all see what things are and taste the truth from the lies of lost goats. If someone says a dog is a cat, make sure you analyse the kool-aid.

a reply to: Seede

Those interested can likewise read the page for the word "Spirit" in relation to some of what you said about that word:

Spirit, Reasoning From the Scriptures

and alternate options (there may be overlapping information):

Spirit, Insight

Soul, Insight

Some information from the last one that doesn't overlap with what I've quoted so far:

The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of neʹphesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [neʹphesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

More recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’” He added: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [neʹphesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Neʹphesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense neʹphesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

As for the Greek word psy·kheʹ, Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as “life,” and “the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,” “a living being,” and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used “of animals.” Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of “departed spirit,” “the immaterial and immortal soul,” “the spirit of the universe,” and “the immaterial principle of movement and life.” Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy·kheʹ was also applied to the “butterfly or moth,” which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·kheʹ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

The bolded part sounds very familiar again ('nothing new under the sun'), quoting you:

This sanctified spirit is immortal. The unworthy spirit is not immortal...

Ignoring for a moment you clearly being affected by someone capitalizing on the ambiguity of language by replacing "soul" with "spirit" and conflating and confusing the 2 terms that have been adequately described in my quotations so far (and on the pages at the start of this comment), you are claiming the same thing as Plato. That would be something I describe as "appealing to ancient fallible philosophers", as in as if they are correct and their philosophies that have been adopted to explain biblical concepts or highly valued (not refuted or objected to) by some major religions, are correct, reliable descriptions of reality. Not pointing to their beliefs for other reasons such as exposing their mythology. And again, hypocritical if you on the other hand pretend to be against the so-called "mystery cults" or "mystery religion", as so many people on ATS do when promoting the very same philosophies and myths/false stories or expressing their beliefs therein as you just did regarding Plato's philosophy that I bolded.

The videos below are not about the "soul", but it might help regarding another important word whose exact meaning has been obscured throughout the centuries by people with an agenda:

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

Any fool can see that.

I didn't want to make a big issue out of this but since I think I quoted this before from the article about the manipulation of information and since I thought it might be of help, I was hoping it might help you to avoid talking like that, but better yet, thinking of that as a useful, healthful or beneficial phrase (you can point out where I make the same mistake, cause I don't quite trust myself in that regards, sometimes frustration in communication can interfere even when being aware of the following):

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Dawkins uses the trick in a much more cunning and clever manner, can you spot it?



Hint, it's in between where he says that "nothing...is...something". the 1st ...

And here are more examples of people succumbing to 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (as in cannot resist to demonstrate):



Since Klassified's first comment here brought up a similar subject and false accusation. While giving us a link to an article by Matt Slick, who I'm wondering if he ever shared his interpretations of prophecy in other threads on ATS or CARM. Funny how atheists (I'm assuming Klassified is an atheist quickly from his last few posts) and the founder of CARM, a very popular fundamentalist Protestant apologetics organization and website, can suddenly jump on the same bandwagon when it comes to this subject. Against mainstream? Broad gate? Narrow gate? Hard to find?

Matthew 7:13,14:

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

I mean Klassified seems very eager to refer to a propagandistic article written by one of the most influential and popular Protestants on the internet, clearly because the information in that article is "tickling his ears". Does that not ring alarm bells in anyone's head? Isn't he supposed to be an atheist, perhaps on ATS voicing his opinions against mainstream media and religion? Why is he so eager to accept their propaganda without any form of skepticism whether propaganda is the right approach, or even the ability to recognize it, or in the worst case scenario, feigning ignorance about its usage by simply just linking the article and leaving it at that, no criticisms, just lovely stuff that tickles people's ears?

I already adressed some of that stuff years ago so I'm not going to do it again (and because it's a huge red herring intended to lead away from the OP and my 2nd comment), just wanted to clarify the above.

a reply to: IsidoreOfSeville

Where do you get your information from? Jack Chick? "True Christians"? So the disciples of the disciples don't count? ATS cracks me up on all these "facts" that "everyone knows" about "Roman" Catholicism.

Where do you get your information from? Jack Chick? "True Christians"? So the disciples of the disciples don't count? ATS cracks me up on all these "facts" that "everyone knows" about "Roman" Catholicism.

Text

No I have never read Jack Chick. Would you please give reference to Jack Chick.

Seriously the intent was not to offend you or Catholicism when I said true Christians. By true Christians should have been worded original Christians. The original Christians were those who were of the synagogue of James the brother of Jesus. It was this sect of Jews and not Romans or Roman authority that established the first Nazarene Synagogue of the Christ Jesus. The Romans nor any other group of people had anything to do with its formation or operation.

As I have stated several times in the past that the synagogue of James flourished for well over three decades before the slaughter of the first congregation began. This synagogue of the Christ Jesus was not known in Hebrew as church nor James known then as bishop. James was known as president and Nasi. The word or office of pope was not heard nor even understood at this time. James the Nasi had the Apostle John as his (Sagan) Deputy High Priest and the Apostle Peter as the (Ah Beth-Din (Chief Officer of the Religious Court. Then there were the elected seventy representatives of the congregation with a cabinet of fifteen who were called the elders. This entire organization was based in Hebrew and Aramaic with no other languages allowed.

These three (James, John and Peter) were referenced to as the pillars of the synagogue with nothing else allowed including the Greek culture. The Nazarene Hellenist' were allowed their own synagogues but were under the umbrella of James. As was said before, this was the Jesus organization which later became known by the murders of the synagogue of James as the Roman Organization.

Now if that insults you then it is not by my fault that you are insulted. There was no NT or likeness to the true Christian Synagogue till long after Hadrian completed his mass annihilation of the Nazarene's in 135 CE. That is a fact of theological history and not of Jack Chick.

Romans_1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans_2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

a reply to: whereislogic

Text First a straw man, then a somewhat puzzling ad hominem perhaps, if that's the right description (what thought of mine would that be that I didn't complete? Could you even quote me on anything about that subject since I haven't even had the chance to respond to someone about that subject? It's like you're putting claims in my words rather than just words in my mouth

Not so in the least. My discussion has been clear and forthright. If you please , when you post a lengthy opinion in quote section please give your source of that quote. Your first digress was that you listed (by reference) the first of your six myths which was that you postulated the soul was not immortal. I believe you should have listed all six of your myths instead of a guessing game of videos to do your own opinions. Videos are of only other opinions unless historically introduced. You need to to stay on tract of the subject matter at hand and not divert attention to other additions.

You posted among many other examples -

Gen. 2:7: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Notice that this does not say that man was given a soul but that he became a soul, a living person.) (The part of the Hebrew word here rendered “soul” is neʹphesh. KJ, AS, and Dy agree with that rendering. RS, JB, NAB read “being.” NE says “creature.” Kx reads “person.”)

According to your opinion and others that you listed, with no authority, the soul is the lifeless clod laying upon the earth called Adam. That may have some merit in your view of reality but you do not speak for the Hebrews and they wrote the book.

The soul is Nephesh or Ruah or Neshamah and is the breath of Yahuah. The soul is the spiritual immaterial part of man held to survive death. Source = is the "Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica" --

Yahuah is total spirit according to Torah and if this be true then it was the spirit of Yahuah which makes alive as He breathed (not blow) the breath of life, or spirit, into that clod which Yahusha created (formed). Created and formed is used interchangeably in English Torah.

Now I leave this in your court to believe as you will and follow your own sources of mistaken understanding. You will never change the Judaic understanding of Torah. As I said before, you try to read Hebrew with Greek understanding and post that understanding in your English and that is not the real world. You need the autographs from Hebrew to English in the cultures of the authors to understand Torah and you also need Oral Torah as the key to your confusion. Good luck and Gd Bless

a reply to: Seede

Hi Seede,

You can read up on Jack Chick here and here.

I have never in my life heard of that version of history, I have to say. Do you have sources for that?

From an "off the top of my head" analysis, I'd like to bring a up a few points if I may. First and foremost, there's Matthew 16:18. And rather than post a wall of text (I know I myself have a hard time reading them), I like to give links. So, here's one that asks Where Does the Bible Say Anything about the Papacy?. Here's another one about Peter and the Papacy. Of note, one good quote from that last one:

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

So, I'm not sure where James was the head of the Church at any point. The Orthodox believe he was indeed the first Bishop of Jerusalem, but he in no way was ever the "head."

I know, this is almost a wall, it's just something I wanted to present as a key point from that article above.

Also, when anyone says Roman Catholic, we must realize that while the intent is to talk about the Pope and those that are in communion with him, it's important to understand that there are many rites in the Catholic Church, of which "Roman" is but one.

Also bear in mind the term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term). More about that in When did the term "Roman Catholic Church" first come into being?

No other Church (I include the Orthodox here, note the capital O) can claim they were founded directly by Jesus. Furthermore, if the Church needed people to break away (gotta love Martin Luther) to recreate a new Church, that would imply Christ was a liar when He said "and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."


Okay, I've said enough for now. These are some of the things I keep in mind when I hear versions of history I've not heard before. So, I'd love to see a source on the version you present.

a reply to: Seede

The original Christians were those who were of the synagogue of James the brother of Jesus. It was this sect of Jews and not Romans or Roman authority that established the first Nazarene Synagogue of the Christ Jesus. The Romans nor any other group of people had anything to do with its formation or operation.

Thank you for bringing our attention to this point.

Romans_1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans_2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

So basically the Dons would be the Sirs or Lords of Rome£? How interesting.
anyone who can remember a mantra can have a Brahmic religion and a Lincoln town car