Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Texty · 11-03-2003, 02:59 PM

CJD

Quote:

CJD wrote:
It is simply: Human Being = Body + Soul + Spirit.

The Bible throws up a simpler equation

1/ Dust + Spirit = Soul
(simply a name for a living person or animal)

also :-
2/ Soul - Spirit = Dust

These two forms of the same equation come from:

1/ 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. (breath = spirit)

2/ Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever. Psa 146: 3-5

yummyfur · 11-03-2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
What's the biblical view(s) on the soul? Is the idea of an immaterial and eternal soul a Jewish idea, or did they get it from other ethnic groups in the region? Reading Ecclesiastes, it seems that the author believed that death is final. Does he believe in souls, perhaps immaterial but not eternal? What about the New Testament writers?

I haven't seen anyone present Jospehus yet in this thread, he would be a good source for first century Jewish thought on this.

On Pharisees: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII, Chp 1, Par 3

Quote:

"They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also."

On Sadducees: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII, Chp 1, Par 4

Quote:

"But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. "

On Essenes: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII, Chp 1, Par 5

Quote:

"The doctrine of the Essens is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices (3) because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to husbandry. "

On the fourth and new Jewish philosophy of Judas the Galilean and Sadduc the Pharisee: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII, Chp 1, Par 6

Quote:

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. "

Patrick Schoeb

Doctor X · 11-03-2003, 04:32 PM

Not to beat the dead horse but:

Quote:

If you've found a way to interpret something without using your own ideas perhaps you should write your own bible about it?

Such involves "interpret something" which implies examination of said "something." This is not wandering off into flights of personal fantasy.

One may wish to believe it is "Romeo and Julian" the great homoerotic masterpiece, but the text does not sustain such a belief.

To put it more simply, it is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.

--J.D.

Devilnaut · 11-03-2003, 04:56 PM

No need to repeat yourself, Doc, I understand you quite clearly!

CJD · 11-04-2003, 06:16 AM

Texty, I can dig it.

My post above was simply a few statements on the historical and systematic theologies of this issue. Keep in mind (this is for the general readership) that "biblical theology" and "systematic theology" rarely use the same lingo. That said, I think both the dichotomous view and the wholistic view are compatible with what you've offered. Thanks for it.

CJD

CJD · 11-04-2003, 09:17 AM

Quote:

On Sadducees: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII, Chp 1, Par 4

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting to me that when a Sadduceean belief is mentioned in the gospel account (Matt. 22), that they are rebuked by Jesus for it. They disbelieved in the doctrine of the resurrection. Josephus mentions their belief in annihilationism. Note that the two can be mutually exclusive. But Jesus doesn't (nor does the gospel writer) even bring this view up (that the soul dies when the body does). Elsewhere, Jesus seems to assume that something individual lives beyond death (cf. the story of Lazarus and the rich man). But this is not specifically what annihilationism denies or supports (i.e., conditional immortality). Whatever is taught about the intermediate state, one thing Jesus clearly taught about this issue (contra the Sadducees) is that the resurrection is certain, for the God of the Patriarchs is not the God of the dead, but of the living (22:32).

Regards,

CJD

Jim Larmore · 11-05-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
It is interesting to me that when a Sadduceean belief is mentioned in the gospel account (Matt. 22), that they are rebuked by Jesus for it. They disbelieved in the doctrine of the resurrection. Josephus mentions their belief in annihilationism. Note that the two can be mutually exclusive. But Jesus doesn't (nor does the gospel writer) even bring this view up (that the soul dies when the body does). Elsewhere, Jesus seems to assume that something individual lives beyond death (cf. the story of Lazarus and the rich man). But this is not specifically what annihilationism denies or supports (i.e., conditional immortality). Whatever is taught about the intermediate state, one thing Jesus clearly taught about this issue (contra the Sadducees) is that the resurrection is certain, for the God of the Patriarchs is not the God of the dead, but of the living (22:32). CJD

I think you are wrong when you say Jesus "assumes" that something individual lives beyond death. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a "parable" and is not to be taken as a factual reality, indeed Jesus stated death is a sleep when he was talking of His friend Lazarus. The only time we take parables as fact is when Jesus says " so it shall be" or something like this. If we took parables as literal we would fall into some rediculous beliefs.

Also when He was rebuking the Sadducees for their disbelief in the resurrection , He was telling them "in this you do err" . They didn't believe in the resurrection because of the Helenistic pagan belief of an immortal soul. This belief had contaminated the doctrines of jewery over the centuries. They didn't believe in a resurrection because if the souls were already there why come to resurrect them? This is sound reasoning by the way. Death is called a sleep 66 times in the Bible. The only true death that will occurr will happen after Hell-fire. Eternal death is true death. In John 3:16 Jesus says "whosoever believes in him shall not "PERISH", but have everlasting life. If the soul was immortal it would never "PERISH". Eternal life is promised to no one but the righteous. The belief in an immortal soul is a deceptive lie and a tradition which is not based in scriptural support.

CJD · 11-06-2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

If we took parables as literal we would fall into some r(i)diculous beliefs.

Gee, thanks for that. I . . . I completely missed that in my higher educational studies in these very subjects.

Quote:

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a "parable" and is not to be taken as a factual reality . . .

Well, this has been contested. But it makes no difference which it is (I prefer to look at it as parable, as well), for doctrine is still taught therein.

Parables, generally speaking, are stories used to make a point that people could apply to their lives. They were analogies garnered from everyday life to teach a deeper spiritual truth. The language used is, of course, couched in a rural Palestinian setting. Thus, in order to understand them we need to understand the culture and setting of 1st century Palestine. But enough of that.

Jesus obviously accommodates his listeners when he describes the states of Lazarus and the rich man after death. It is not to be taken literally. In fact, the story as a whole connects with one of the main themes in Luke�the proud foolishness of the rich and the need of the poor (cf. Lk. 12:13�34; 16:19�31; 11:41; 12:33; 3:10�14; 1:52�53). These are not chance descriptions; it is thematic. This, then, would be the central message of the Lazarus/rich man pericope. Nonetheless, reducing the story to its lowest common denominators enables me to say�without too much of a stretch�that Jesus conveyed as an integral element in this story the notion that Lazarus faced (immediate) blessing hereafter, while the rich man faced an (immediate) curse. Contest this if you will, but do better than chiding me for taking a parable too literally.

Your second paragraph confuses me. Do you agree with the Sadducees? Do you think conditional immortality is a Hellenistic intrusion? (Note that I do think immortality for all people without discrimination is Greekish.) What would have Adam the First received had he obeyed the commands of God?

Quote:

Eternal death is true death. In John 3:16 Jesus says "whosoever believes in him shall not "PERISH", but have everlasting life. If the soul was immortal it would never "PERISH". Eternal life is promised to no one but the righteous.

I tend to agree here. Did I not say as much (but more cautiously) in a previous post? Remember, I also contended that the a denial of the resurrection and annihilationism can be mutually exclusive. The latter might lead to the former, but it does not have to.

Regards,

CJD

11-07-2003, 12:09 AM

Soul in the Bible is totally different from what the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans religiously and philosophically called a soul.

Doctor X · 11-07-2003, 11:12 AM

Jim:

You have to be careful crossing Gospels. What Junior teaches in one is not the same as what he teaches in another.

Causitive Imperfect of the Proto-Canaanite-Hebrew Verb-hwy-truth:

Care to elaborate?

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2003, 04:56 PM	#24
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	No need to repeat yourself, Doc, I understand you quite clearly!

11-04-2003, 06:16 AM	#25
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	Texty, I can dig it. My post above was simply a few statements on the historical and systematic theologies of this issue. Keep in mind (this is for the general readership) that "biblical theology" and "systematic theology" rarely use the same lingo. That said, I think both the dichotomous view and the wholistic view are compatible with what you've offered. Thanks for it. CJD

11-07-2003, 12:09 AM	#29
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	Soul in the Bible is totally different from what the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans religiously and philosophically called a soul.

11-07-2003, 11:12 AM	#30
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Jim: You have to be careful crossing Gospels. What Junior teaches in one is not the same as what he teaches in another. Causitive Imperfect of the Proto-Canaanite-Hebrew Verb-hwy-truth: Care to elaborate? --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.