What Is The Soul?

Brian-M said:
:confused: No, I'm saying that if 500 people witnessed it, why don't we have any eyewitness accounts? Surely some of them would have recorded it at the time, saying that they actually saw this amazing event happen with their own eyes. All we have is other people claiming that Jesus was seen over 500 people.
Click to expand...

Before he appeared to the 500 he appeared to the 12, including 3 of the writers of the gospels. There are your eyewitnesses. In the Hebrew law in order to condemn a man to death you needed at least 2 witnesses. You have three.

Brian-M said:
spurious (comparative more spurious, superlative most spurious)
1. false, not authentic, not genuine
2. (archaic) bastardly, illegitimate

Well, I won't dispute that. In fact, I'd go one step further and say that the entire New Testament is spurious.

But do you have a specific reason for discarding that portion of The Bible, other than the fact that it clearly does not match up with reality?
Click to expand...

The Codex Regius (Manuscript L 019) of the 8th century contain a short and long conclusion after verse 8 saying of both that they are current in some quarters. Neither conclusion is recognized as authoritative.

The Greek Codex Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi rescriptus from the fifth century C.E., as well as the Greek and Latin Bezae Codices from the fifth and sixth centuries C.E., Jerome's Latin Vulgate c. 400 C.E., Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac and Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aramaic both from the fifth century C.E. add the long conclusion, but the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican ms 1209, both from the fourth century C.E. as well as the Cinaitic Syriac codex from the fourth and fifth century C.E., and Armenian Version from the fourth to thirteenth century C.E. omits them. It would seem, especially when examining the context, that these verses were added sometime during this period.

Brian-M said:
And it's already been pointed out that the word soul was never used in The Bible in it's original form, because the word didn't exist. The words that are translated as soul in modern versions do not exactly mean the same thing as soul as it's commonly used. Maybe you should be discussing nephesh as used in The Bible instead?
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point, and if it were not for the common usage of the word soul in most translations I would be doing just that.

Brian-M said:
Looking back at that post...


(Highlighted numbers added for reference.)

So your definition for soul is...
  1. Blood (and only the blood) of a living person or animal.
  2. Life itself, as well as the manifestations of life.
  3. An entire living person.
  4. The life of an individual conscious human
The first definition is not compatible with the next three, so which do you mean?
Click to expand...

Blood is the soul. Leviticus 17:14 / Genesis 9:5-6. The soul is the blood or in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) because it is so important to life.

Brian-M said:
Does the word soul only refer to blood, in which case, why call it soul and not blood, except to confuse the issue? Just call it blood, so everyone can agree on what is being talked about.
Click to expand...

The Hebrew dam and the Greek haima are translated blood. Why not just call it blood? If it is said that knowledge is power or money is power it doesn't mean that we have to abandon one word for another.

Brian-M said:
Or does the word soul refer to the process of life, in which case as soul is not something that exists, but something that happens. (You wouldn't say that falling exists or eating exists either. These are things which happen, not things which are.) But any way, why call it soul and not life, except to confuse the issue? Just call it life, so everyone can agree on what is being talked about.
Click to expand...

See above.

Brian-M said:
But if you insist on redefining the word for something supernatural to mean something mundane, can I get in on the action too? I'd like to claim that the word YHWH originally referred to an anthropomorphic concept of wind, and the stories of The Bible are full of hot air.
Click to expand...

Actually wind is translated from the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma which is also translated as spirit. Jehovah simply means "He that causes to become," in other words, simplified, Creator.
 
Last edited:
Pure_Argent said:
Whichever definition you choose, it is still utterly useless, as we have perfectly good words already to describe these things. So what, exactly, is it that you think that defining "soul" as "life" or "blood" does?
Click to expand...

What percentage of people - believer and unbeliever alike; skeptic, critic, scholar and layman - would you imagine think that the soul according to the Bible is the unscriptural Greek philosophical definition of the soul and of what import would you say that had on theology, and skepticism or just a gereric belief in God and the Bible?

This isn't rocket science, it isn't a theocratic or atheistic labotomy.
 
David Henson said:
What percentage of people - believer and unbeliever alike; skeptic, critic, scholar and layman - would you imagine think that the soul according to the Bible is the unscriptural Greek philosophical definition of the soul and of what import would you say that had on theology, and skepticism or just a gereric belief in God and the Bible?

This isn't rocket science, it isn't a theocratic or atheistic labotomy.
Click to expand...
Blood=soul. So?
 
David Henson said:
As far as I am aware it says absolutely nothing, which is exactly what your point amounts to, if there was one.
Click to expand...
Great point.
So the Bible says nothing relevant about blood...ooops "soul" for that matter. Your Bible as useful as a doorstop.
 
David Henson said:
Throw the entire Bible out the window. That is what I would do.
Click to expand...
Really? What about when you prayed to God and the JW came to your door? That would mean god wasn't real or that he wasn't to be trusted? Honestly --- you think I've been ridiculous ---- but this is the most serious question I've asked you so far.

David Henson said:
I would ask you not to be ridiculous, but its far too late for that.



Okay. No. No. No. Good. Thats correct. You mean like Jannes and Jambres before Moses or the disciples of Christ? No.



It depends. Are you saying that you are incapable of having faith?
Click to expand...
Dude. Perhaps I've been missing the obvious question, and if the answer to it is no, then I should rightly have egg on my face (somewhat).

Do you believe in God?

The Hebrew dam and the Greek haima are translated blood. Why not just call it blood? If it is said that knowledge is power or money is power it doesn't mean that we have to abandon one word for another.
Click to expand...
Then why not call the blood power?

paximperium said:
Yawn. So the soul is blood. So what?
Click to expand...

David Henson said:
Thats it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

paximperium said:
Blood=soul. So?
Click to expand...

David Henson said:
Yeah. So.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This was the point to this thread?

I feel like I should ask if you've ever auditioned for Amafraid-I-cant Idol and Simon Cowell was mean to you or something. There has to be a rational explanation if you're not a teenager.
 
Last edited:
trentwray said:
Really? What about when you prayed to God and the JW came to your door? That would mean god wasn't real or that he wasn't to be trusted? Honestly --- you think I've been ridiculous ---- but this is the most serious question I've asked you so far.
Click to expand...

Oh, man! You're right on top of it . . . so close you can almost taste it. Yet so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom