Jim Larmore

My comment: Weather its "mythical history" or not I don't know I'll need to find out but its definitely pagan historical literature that I've studied.


My comment:: I guess this is another possible thread item but most all commentators on the Bible say the serpent was used by satan to deceive Eve. The serpent without the supernatural influence of satan couldn't have talked to or deceived Eve so the one doing the deceiving was satan via the serpent.

My comment:; I really wasn't trying to flatter you, I was speaking the truth, if you took it that way its ok , but I wasn't trying to gain any favor here at all. I just get a kick out of reading your posts.

My comment: I know , your right, however when it comes to the Bible and since we are debating the Bible I will on occasion get absolute. As far as getting "huffy" theres a lot of that going on all over this forum and I have to admitt theres been times I felt like going behind the shed and sucking my thumb but we all need to be adults here and take it as long as it stays civil.

My comment: So true!!

My comment: I use all the Bible to "proove" the "thematic" philosophy it displays. True , Revelation was written thousands of years later than lst Samuel however, it explains what theses spirits called up by the witch of endor were. I think like I said before this belief i.e. the immortality of the soul has come to us thru the ages and is a deceptive lie. I know you didn't say this but just because something is a traditonal belief or culturally engrained doesn't make it true.

{tags added by Toto for clarity}

Doctor X

Jim:

It took me a while to figure out it was a response. I avoid the "quote" button and just use the "[]" around quote . . . it seems to work better.

The reason that is important is you cannot use a myth as historical justification.

. . . and they would be wrong. The best commentary on what "a satan" is/was and the development into the figure we all know and love remains Neil Forsyth's The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth, Princeton University Press. I highly recommend it.

"Most scholars" do not identify the serpent with "Satan." He can be considered "a stn" as in "stumbling block" because he does allow the two to "stumble." This is far from the Satan you describe.

The text does not support this. YHWH created everyone--including the serpent.

[Now we need to use a cattle prod to contain his ego.--Ed.]

One from the perspective of the author of Revelations . . . if he even considered the Samuel incident. On the contrary, from the perspective of Samuel, the spirit is, indeed, Samuel's spirit. It is quite similar to Odysseus talking to Achilleus after he died.

Well . . . I would not go so far as to call it a "deceptive lie" in that the writers probably did not have this much malevolence involved. Belief in a "soul" or a "sprit" is common and "makes sense" to people. What it all involves is interpretation. My contention was that some of the "Jewish" religions--whatever you want to call the various manifestations around during the different texts' compositions--had a concept of an "immortal soul" of some type. This was not a foreign concept.

Now, how much of "Jewish" religion was original and how much was borrowed? A lot was, as many of these threads discussing the creation and flood myths demonstrate--not to mention the whole Moses-Sargon thing.

However, "borrowing" often involves "shaping" to serve a purpose.

--J.D.

Doctor X

With all due respect:

how does one have a serious discussion on the soul? For some, no evidence whatsoever exists to suggest any conception of soul exists--whether you want to be Greek, Saul in Endor, or wandering about a Pauline letter. For others, the soul does exist for whatever theological, emotional, or cognitive reason.

You will have an impass, and debate on it will seem, frankly, "silly." Yet, for some reason, that does not disturb the serious scholars who engage in it. Perhaps they are better at keeping a perspective.

I would also wager, if I may be permitted to swing about some more StrawScholars, that they understand what people bring to a discussion. A person who "knows" a soul exists, in his mind "knows" this as firmly as one who sees no evidence for it. This gnosis is transfered to the texts. A person who expects biblical literature to match his current theology--and why not?--will look to the texts to support his theology. Reads circular, but it is.

--J.D.

Amos

I take objection to this and ask you to tell me why in Rev. 21:1 "the sea was no longer" when the new heaven and the new earth were perceived. Here it is from the NAB "Then I saw the new heavens and the new earth. The former heavens and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no longer."

Clearly, with our comprehension of the new heaven and the new earth the sea once again becomes an intergral part of heaven and earth. Cf. Gen.1:3 or so.

Doctor X

Amos:

Your not helping my case!

With all due respect, what is the relevance of your post? If it is in response to another poster could you please identify the person.

--J.D.

Toto

Later tonight I have plans to split the Pilate material from this thread, leaving the "soul" discussion.

Amos

Sorry I never tried to help your case but just wanted to remind you that before you can rightfully deny the existence of a soul you must make sure that you have all of your bases covered and not leave scriptures untouched because you may not understand them.

Doctor X

Actually, I think you intended your reply in another thread.

On the contrary, what the texts state have no relationship whatsoever on the actual existence of a soul. Furthermore, interpreting what writers thought about the "soul" requires considering the texts which you have not done. You cannot torture them to confirm your opinion. You certainly cannot expect an author writting a thousand years before another to agree with him.

As always, if you wish to discuss the texts, you have to discuss the texts and not simply your personal theology.

For the rest, you might as well refer it to the new thread on the subject or wait for Toto to perform his magic.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

I've just read Revelations 21, and I still can't fathom how Amos could reasonably tie that up with the question of the soul. Seems like another random irrelevant post by Amos.

Devilnaut

The sea is our soul. Water is dynamic form (where ice would be static form and this would be the metaphorical realm of consciousness) and this means that it is perfect form because it can contain God (because it is really formless!). This is why Catholics call Mary the perfect vessel (perfect blue!), because she has no identity (no ideas "of her own") and this is why Jesus was born of her (also why it was called a virgin birth, virgin is without the presence of human will, only the will of God at work: no images/representations!) and this is also why the complex beast (a big and complicated ego) comes from the sea and why the simplified beast (an image of the first beast: a representation, the realm of human will/consciousness aimed at God but in truth afraid of God, he's a bit of a control freak) comes from the earth (because the earth means the will of man; once Adam and Eve aquired knowledge they were cast out of Eden and on to the flat earth).

"Furthermore, interpreting what writers thought about the soul"

The writers didn't think about anything because their writing was the word of God. The word of God means that it was perfectly honest (and therefore consistent with "God's plan") and what this means is that their "form" had been placed subservient to their "content", and what THIS means (it's a long road but curses to me for not making it longer) is that the writers were merely reporting their experiences (not trying to stuff their experiences into a preconceived box).