What Is The Soul?

[Nonpareil]

Well, if we are talking about the Mosaic Law which, from the perspective of the Hebrew / Aramaic and Christian Greek scripture (often incorrectly referred to as the Old Testament and New Testament) agree that the Mosaic Law was an imperfect foreshadow of the more perfect law of Christ and was replaced by the latter the church is opperating on the ignorance of the masses, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. It is, however, operating very smoothly, as was its intent.

And are you suggesting that the entire nation of Israel under the Mosaic Law was only a few people who did exist? Though I don't see how that would change anything even if it were true.

I never said anything of the sort. I said that many of the people that the Bible mentions explicitly cannot be shown to have existed - Moses, for example, and Jesus, as well as many others. Undoubtedly there were people who were Jewish, and who believed in Mosaic law. They were subject to the Jewish church (or synagogue, if you prefer) as much as modern-day Christians are subject to the Christian church. What's your point?

Thats the one! I must have beaten that game at least a half dozen times.

Yeah, it's addicting, isn't it? It's like a little slice of classic platforming heaven.

EDIT: But we're getting off-topic here. Let's get back to the soul. I've pretty much got the same questions as everyone else: what exactly is a spirit creature, and how do you know that it exists?

 

[jond]

David ... I'm being 100% serious. If I am off you will think I'm joking, but I'm not ... I've heard there are some people who believe this:

All this talk of blood/soul ..... Do you think God or Jesus was a vampire?

Does the bible say anything about Jesus' skin sparkling in the sun?

 

[Sun Countess]

As an atheist (more aptly irreligious, though if atheist means not believing in gods I was atheist) I wasn't informed about the Bible and thought I should be.

Why?

Why not just continue to accept it as a work of fiction? My only interest in the bible is the disconnect I get when I realize that people accept it as somehow truthful, or when I realize that people actually worship one of the most despicable characters ever written as loving or morally above reproach.

Discovering that the Bible was exactly what it claimed to be in no way obligated me to worship or appreciate Jehovah God.

What about the bible led you to believe it was exactly what it claimed to be? Certainly not the genocide and misogyny.....

As the Bible says, the demons know and yet shudder. As a then practicing homosexual I had to decide which direction I wanted to go and it wasn't easy. I could just as well have rejected God, though believing.

Not really my business, but just a question regarding what you posted: does this mean that you are no longer a practicing homosexual?

On this forum and others atheist tell me that they are not interested in the Bible and that's fine, but is their harping on it only an indication that they want me to shut up or that they are not interested in it?

I explained above that my only interest in the bible is trying to figure out how anybody in this day and age can read it and accept it as either historically accurate, or as a proper moral guide. It's clearly neither.

When there are groups that are trying to have the "historical accuracy" of the bible taught in the classrooms, disguised as intelligent design, that affects me and my children. When there are other groups that are trying to have the "proper moral guide" enacted into laws that affect everyone, I'm going to respond. I don't care if bible-believers don't want to get divorced, or practice homosexuality, or have sex before marriage, or eat shellfish. I only care when they tell me that their outdated and hateful laws apply to me. The bible has been used for centuries to support laws which burnt witches and heretics, promoted slavery, and considered women the property of men. That's gonna provoke a reaction.

I happen to believe that atheists are either uninformed or are politically and or socially frustrated in a predominately theistic society. But I also happen to believe that believers or unbelievers should at least be given the opportunity to be aware of the possibility that they are mislead or uninformed. If you are not interested ignore me.

What you believe is wrong. Atheists aren't uninformed. Some may be frustrated by some of the stupidity they see, that's true, but atheists are atheists because there is no evidence of any gods. If Christians or anybody else wants to convince atheists to become theists, they need to:

1) Quit telling atheists why they're really atheists, as if the atheists are too stupid to understand their own reasons;

2) Produce some fricking evidence for your god already.

Why on earth would they do such a thing?

Something to do with it being April 1st.

 

[H3LL]

I have already told you. At death. Not before.

No. They are resurrected upon death into spirit creatures. Flesh and blood can't go to heaven, only spirit creatures.

This is a fast moving thread.

David Henson, well done for keeping up and thanks for answering.

What bits of the now dead person are copied into the spirit creatures?

I'm guessing nobody knows how the copying process happens and I don't recall a copying process being mentioned in the bible, so that won't help.

This copying, I'm assuming, helps assure that deceased Fred Corpseguy is still Fred Corpseguy when he gets to heaven.

 

[Trent Wray]

Does the bible say anything about Jesus' skin sparkling in the sun?

The transfiguration my friend. And when it happened the teenie-girls went nutz and wanted posters of the event

In all seriousness though, I had a goth-Xtian friend who always referred to Jesus as "the first Vampire" because of the Last Supper verbiage about eating his body and drinking his blood:

"This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

She was quite serious about it.

 

[David Henson]

What's a spirit creature?

The Greek word pneuma means invisible to the human eye and yet producing results. It is where the English word pneumatic and pneumonia come from. It, along with it's Hebrew contemporary, can be translated "wind," "breeze," or "breath." It can mean mental inclination, such as "the spirit of the horse is broken" or "that man is mean spirited." It can also mean "spirit" creatures in that they are invisible to the human eye but can produce active results. And that they are creatures. God is a spirit in the sense that he is invisible and can produce results. Holy means in a basic sense belonging to God so the Holy spirit is God's invisible active force.

An angel, (angel coming from the Hebrew malakh and the Greek aggelos which both literally mean "messenger") when applied to men is rendered "messenger" and when to spirit creatures rendered "angel(s)."

What are some characteristics of spirit creatures?

They are free moral agents, corruptible, have feelings, bodies, capable of humility, have names, languages, voices, will, personality, limitations, feeling, and spirit (mental inclination). they are sexless, that is without gender. Scriptural references to all of that upon request.

Do we have any evidence that there's such a thing as a spirit creature?

You may not accept it, but we have the Bible. Also, though probably not acceptable, we have reports of "ghosts" which are nothing more than rebellious spirit creatures, aka, demons.

 

[jond]

The transfiguration my friend. And when it happened the teenie-girls went nutz and wanted posters of the event

In all seriousness though, I had a goth-Xtian friend who always referred to Jesus as "the first Vampire" because of the Last Supper verbiage about eating his body and drinking his blood:

"This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

She was quite serious about it.

Wow. OK.

But, apparently, this must mean that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Because we all know he'd have looked just like Robert Pattinson.

 

[Trent Wray]

Wow. OK.

But, apparently, this must mean that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Because we all know he'd have looked just like Robert Pattinson.

Not exactly. Keep putting those puzzle pieces together and you'll get it.

Remember the shroud was created magically by the essence of the one under it?

Remember awhile back the rumors that Pattinson never bathed? LOL

You see it now? Pattinson=real vampire=filthy dude odor=odor made shroud image=Jesus.

Yep. That's right.

 

[Trent Wray]

The Greek word pneuma means invisible to the human eye and yet producing results. It is where the English word pneumatic and pneumonia come from. It, along with it's Hebrew contemporary, can be translated "wind," "breeze," or "breath." It can mean mental inclination, such as "the spirit of the horse is broken" or "that man is mean spirited." It can also mean "spirit" creatures in that they are invisible to the human eye but can produce active results. And that they are creatures. God is a spirit in the sense that he is invisible and can produce results. Holy means in a basic sense belonging to God so the Holy spirit is God's invisible active force.

An angel, (angel coming from the Hebrew malakh and the Greek aggelos which both literally mean "messenger") when applied to men is rendered "messenger" and when to spirit creatures rendered "angel(s)."



They are free moral agents, corruptible, have feelings, bodies, capable of humility, have names, languages, voices, will, personality, limitations, feeling, and spirit (mental inclination). they are sexless, that is without gender. Scriptural references to all of that upon request.



You may not accept it, but we have the Bible. Also, though probably not acceptable, we have reports of "ghosts" which are nothing more than rebellious spirit creatures, aka, demons.

So are you tossing the Enochian tradition and understanding of the Watchers / crossbreeding angels+people / etc?

 

[David Henson]

Yes. It is, however, operating very smoothly, as was its intent.

I live in a small midwestern town in America where there is a well known preacher in a church who teaches eternal damnation in hellfire. The Jehovah's Witnesses approached him one day and during the conversation they told him "The Bible doesn't teach hell, you know?" And he said, "Oh, yeah, I know." Surprised they asked him "Well why do you preach it, because you want to scare your congregation into attendance?" He laughed at this and said "No, not at all. I preach it because if I didn't I would be out of a job."

Whether out of willful ignorance or adherance to the traditions of men, unfortuanatly it can be said that the church gets and will continue to get what it deserves.

I never said anything of the sort. I said that many of the people that the Bible mentions explicitly cannot be shown to have existed - Moses, for example, and Jesus, as well as many others. Undoubtedly there were people who were Jewish, and who believed in Mosaic law. They were subject to the Jewish church (or synagogue, if you prefer) as much as modern-day Christians are subject to the Christian church. What's your point?

You have already made it. See above. Religion only ever has one story. Also, in addition, why on earth do you think that there would be any secular history of the men Moses and Jesus. By, the way, not that I couldn't provide some that are commonly accepted.

Yeah, it's addicting, isn't it? It's like a little slice of classic platforming heaven.

EDIT: But we're getting off-topic here. Let's get back to the soul. I've pretty much got the same questions as everyone else: what exactly is a spirit creature, and how do you know that it exists?

It doesn't hurt to get off topic every once in a while. I think I have explained what a spirit creature is after you posted this - in response to MarkM's post in this thread.

 

[cienaños]

The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe both mean a person or animal or the life which the person or animal enjoys. In a basic literal sense the soul is the blood of any living creature and in a more figurative sense it is the life of or the person or animal itself.

The soul dies, it is mortal. It is not the same as the spirit, they (the spirit and the soul) are sometimes used in the same verse of the Bible with obvious use of the words indicating they are different.

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.

"There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepes [nephesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person . . . . The term psykhe is the N T word corresponding with nepes. 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) was used by Moses . . . . signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psyche ('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.

Did not read the entire thread, so if this has been covered, yada yada yada.

This is one of the better descriptions of the "soul." At least in my humble agnostic opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duende_(art)

 

[Nonpareil]

<off-topic snipped>

Just trying to head this off before it goes more out of the way. While I do agree that it's okay to get off-topic every once in a while, we're getting very close to derail territory.

What's a spirit creature?

The Greek word pneuma means invisible to the human eye and yet producing results. It is where the English word pneumatic and pneumonia come from. It, along with it's Hebrew contemporary, can be translated "wind," "breeze," or "breath." It can mean mental inclination, such as "the spirit of the horse is broken" or "that man is mean spirited." It can also mean "spirit" creatures in that they are invisible to the human eye but can produce active results. And that they are creatures. God is a spirit in the sense that he is invisible and can produce results. Holy means in a basic sense belonging to God so the Holy spirit is God's invisible active force.

So a spirit creature is simply an invisible animal?

What are some characteristics of spirit creatures?

They are free moral agents, corruptible

These mean?

have feelings, bodies, capable of humility, have names, languages, voices, will, personality, limitations, feeling, and spirit (mental inclination). they are sexless, that is without gender. Scriptural references to all of that upon request.

These aren't really characteristics. What are their physical traits?

Do we have any evidence that there's such a thing as a spirit creature?

You may not accept it, but we have the Bible.

No, we don't accept that, because the Bible is the source of the claims about spirit creatures in the first place. You can't use the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible.

Also, though probably not acceptable, we have reports of "ghosts" which are nothing more than rebellious spirit creatures, aka, demons.

Also not acceptable, because there is absolutely zero evidence that ghosts or demons exist.

 

[I Ratant]

And that will not be forever, get the idea.

Paul

.
We now have the official lower limit on how long "forever" will be.
I expect by the time the unwashed masses on earth tire of telling BSD how great he is, and he responds... "Yuo, I am, nyuck, nyuck", 5 billion years of that will have cloyed.
And the 144,000 that evaded the cut to the exile on earth, I wonder who they will be?

 

[I Ratant]

...
Not really my business, but just a question regarding what you posted: does this mean that you are no longer a practicing homosexual?

...

.
I am truly repentant before I post this....
The obvious answer could be:
"No, now I'm really good at it!"..
Sorry.

 

[David Henson]

Did not read the entire thread, so if this has been covered, yada yada yada.

This is one of the better descriptions of the "soul." At least in my humble agnostic opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duende_(art)

You are, at least as far as I'm aware, the first person to say this and, from your humble agnostic opinion, I appreciate it.

 

[Trent Wray]

No. I understand that reaction, though. The first 25 years of my life I hated Christianity and Religious nuts. That really hasn't changed unless it has increased. As an atheist (more aptly irreligious, though if atheist means not believing in gods I was atheist) I wasn't informed about the Bible and thought I should be. Discovering that the Bible was exactly what it claimed to be in no way obligated me to worship or appreciate Jehovah God. As the Bible says, the demons know and yet shudder. As a then practicing homosexual I had to decide which direction I wanted to go and it wasn't easy. I could just as well have rejected God, though believing.

I was an atheist most of my life. Everyone in my life right now - friends and family - are all atheists except for my mother. Some believers believe because they want to, some because of tradition or culture, and some from intense personal study. The same applies to unbelievers. Thats a personal thing and I don't judge lack of knowledge until either believer or unbeliever states publicly or directly to me something which to my knowledge is wrong.

This sounds like a hard road for you to travel. But this is also the kind of information I was wanting you to reveal. Why do you accept god when you know that you can still believe yet reject god? What is your personal reason? And thank you for the openness and honesty in this post.

I would have an extremely difficult time trusting the god of the bible. And yet, despite your own circumstances and background, you do. Why?

 

[jond]

Not exactly. Keep putting those puzzle pieces together and you'll get it.

Remember the shroud was created magically by the essence of the one under it?

Remember awhile back the rumors that Pattinson never bathed? LOL

You see it now? Pattinson=real vampire=filthy dude odor=odor made shroud image=Jesus.

Yep. That's right.

My friend's niece might just wet herself over this!

 

[Foster Zygote]

If I'm not mistaken heaven predates Christianity.

As a realm where God resides, yes. As a destination for the souls of deceased Christians, no. The idea that the reward for accepting Christ's redemption is admission to Heaven is one of those ideas that grew out of the evolution of early Christianity, like the idea that Jeshua ben Joseph was divine.

 

[David Henson]

Why?

Why not just continue to accept it as a work of fiction? My only interest in the bible is the disconnect I get when I realize that people accept it as somehow truthful, or when I realize that people actually worship one of the most despicable characters ever written as loving or morally above reproach.

Why would I continue to accept it as a work of fiction when I don't think that it is a work of fiction? Or were you talking about yourself? In that case that is up to you.

What about the bible led you to believe it was exactly what it claimed to be? Certainly not the genocide and misogyny.....

Many things. It's overall harmony, prophecy, accuracy, reliability, trustworthiness. That is my opinion. My observations, the result of my intense study.

Not really my business, but just a question regarding what you posted: does this mean that you are no longer a practicing homosexual?

I don't mind your asking. Yes, it means that I am no longer a practicing homosexual.

I explained above that my only interest in the bible is trying to figure out how anybody in this day and age can read it and accept it as either historically accurate, or as a proper moral guide. It's clearly neither.

I find it historically accurate as much as that is worth. A moral guide . . . hmmm . . . through primarily bad example. You have to admit that Christianity, in its typically oblivious nature, has made a desperate and reckless attempt to replace the future kingdom of Jehovah God and its Lord Christ Jesus with petty politics and a misguided attempt to act as a sort of self appointed moral police of the globe. Hypocritical ignorance is the mutual bond of politics and religion. Morality should be listed as one of the primary considerations in the obvious and total need of a separation of church and state, in my opinion.

When there are groups that are trying to have the "historical accuracy" of the bible taught in the classrooms, disguised as intelligent design, that affects me and my children. When there are other groups that are trying to have the "proper moral guide" enacted into laws that affect everyone, I'm going to respond. I don't care if bible-believers don't want to get divorced, or practice homosexuality, or have sex before marriage, or eat shellfish. I only care when they tell me that their outdated and hateful laws apply to me. The bible has been used for centuries to support laws which burnt witches and heretics, promoted slavery, and considered women the property of men. That's gonna provoke a reaction.

I agree as well do the Jehovah's Witnesses. Homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, and evolution / intelligent design are all issues that should be decided in their respective quarters rather than dictated one to the other. Thus, the separation of church and state. Fortunately for me it is of little real concern and unfortunately for you it is a political and social issue. All the more reason to educate yourself in the basic history and contradictions in Biblical misinterpretation . . . but that's your problem not mine. As I mentioned, I remove myself from all of that as much as is possible.

What you believe is wrong. Atheists aren't uninformed. Some may be frustrated by some of the stupidity they see, that's true, but atheists are atheists because there is no evidence of any gods.

I was an atheist for 25 years. Every one I personally know with the exception of one person is atheist and I have been discussing and debating with them in person and on line for over 15 years. They are, almost completely uninformed on what the Bible actually says. I am absolutely confident in saying that. In fact, of the hundreds I have had discussions with only one single one, a man who goes by the name of Rambo on the SAB and Bible Babble forums, was, in my opinion, well informed. None of the others so far has even come close. And of course as an atheist he didn't agree with me and thought my theology was only an odd JW rip off, so I am not saying that for any other reason than he was informed and willing to do research.

If Christians or anybody else wants to convince atheists to become theists, they need to:

1) Quit telling atheists why they're really atheists, as if the atheists are too stupid to understand their own reasons;

2) Produce some fricking evidence for your god already.

I call it like I see it, and given time I can produce all the evidence you need, though I'm not foolish enough to want to make any theists.

Something to do with it being April 1st.

Hmmm . . . atheists would never fall for that tomfoolery without sound evidence.

 

[cienaños]

You are, at least as far as I'm aware, the first person to say this and, from your humble agnostic opinion, I appreciate it.

My pleasure.

Now, if only someone else would take a moment to consider this. Instead of all this bashing that seems to be going on.

Peace