What is a soul?

[Skrill]

It is fact that the Physical Brain controls memories, personality. Thousands of other actions are all controlled by our nervous system, which is managed by our brains.

Therefore, what consensus is there for any evidence for a soul(s)? As the existence of the soul is very central to any belief or religion.

(my first post )

[tigger2]

H. M. Orlinsky (editor-in-chief of the 1962 Torah), stated that the English word “soul� had been virtually eliminated from the Torah (which was incorporated into the 1985 Tanakh, JPS, as the first five books by Moses) because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’� And: “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.

[tigger2]

Many modern theologians reject the view that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the immortal soul,[footnotes A-I] and Hebblethwaite observes the doctrine is "not popular amongst Christian theologians or among Christian philosophers today".[J]
................................................

A."But the Jew did not believe that human beings consist of an immortal soul entombed for a while in a mortal body.", Caird & Hurst, "New Testament Theology", p. 267 (1994).

B. "While the idea of an immortal soul is an established belief for most Christians, it cannot be supported by Biblical texts.", Ford & Muers, "The modern theologians: an introduction to Christian theology since 1918", p. 693 (2005).

C. "Consequently Buddhist and biblical views of the self agree that there exists no immortal soul that remains self-identically permanent through time.", Ford & Muers, "The modern theologians: an introduction to Christian theology since 1918", p. 693 (2005).

D. "Berkouwer has a long chapter on the meaning of the soul called "The Whole Man." Here he denounces the theory of a "substantial dichotomy" between an immortal soul and a mortal body.", Moody, "The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation", p. 182 (1990).

E. "Berkouwer's critique of belief in the natural immortality of the soul is as significant as it is Scriptural. At times he argues that "creedal caution" is better than dogmatic theology, but his main thrust is against the theory of belief in an immortal soul independent of God. Only God is by nature immortal, and man's immortality is a gift received in dependence upon the immortal God.", Moody, "The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation", p. 182 (1990).

F. "Fudge admits that belief in the immortality of the soul is the main current in church history. He, however, favors another view: 'Crisscrossing all of this flows the stream of Christian mortalism. . . . This understanding appears as the sparkling water of pristine Christianity.' He defines mortalism as 'the belief that according to divine revelation the soul does not exist as an independent substance after the death of the body.'", Fudge & Peterson, "Two views of hell: a biblical & theological dialogue", p. 173 (2000).

G. "Theodore R. Clark also taught it. In his view, the whole person is mortal and subject to final and total destruction.", Richards, "Winds of doctrines: the origin and development of Southern Baptist theology", p. 207 (1991).

H. "It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.", Vogels, "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion, volume 7, p. 80 (1994).

I. "Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an 'immortal soul' is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible.", Dixon, "What Is Man?", Emmaus Journal (9.2.168), 2000.

J. "That the idea of the soul's immortality as disembodied state beyond death is not popular amongst Christian theologians or among Christian philosophers today has already been acknowledged.", Hebblethwaite, "Philosophical theology and Christian doctrine", p. 113 (2005). -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible

[Monta]

[Replying to dio9]


"First off, I see the soul in the eastern sense as that which is divine within us. Under the cover of our personality and ego wants needs and desires like the ground . As Paul Tillich wrote, " the ground of our bring". Our soul is something like God hiding in us.
Proof? only an encounter with it."

I believe that is Genesis story also.

[dio9]

The soul is something all good men and women have been trying to understand. That means all good religions too. The best I can see now is the soul is of God. Like the poles of a magnet , positive and negative.

[dio9]

[Replying to dio9]

In a the magnetic pole analogy where God would be one end say positive and Man the other say negative there is no clear separation .

[Talishi]

Genesis said, "Adam came to BE a living soul" The soul was described as what Adam was not what he had.

Otherwise you'd have to explain what it was that "has" a soul, and why that wouldn't be the soul.

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis said, "Adam came to BE a living soul" The soul was described as what Adam was not what he had.

Otherwise you'd have to explain what it was that "has" a soul, and why that wouldn't be the soul.

Probably. Unfortunately I don't understand what you have just said.

Sorry. But as I was saying. A soul is just another way of saying "person". If you substitute the word "soul" in your sentence for "person" then you'll understand why the sentence itself make little sense to me.

[Talishi]

Genesis said, "Adam came to BE a living soul" The soul was described as what Adam was not what he had.

Otherwise you'd have to explain what it was that "has" a soul, and why that wouldn't be the soul.

Probably. Unfortunately I don't understand what you have just said.

Sorry. But as I was saying. A soul is just another way of saying "person". If you substitute the word "soul" in your sentence for "person" then you'll understand why the sentence itself make little sense to me.

I'm speaking of an infinite regression. If the soul is a person's identity, then a soul can possess a body, but it cannot possess a soul, since it would possess itself. If there's a little woman inside me pulling all the levers to move my body, there must be an even smaller woman inside her, pulling her levers, and so on ad infinitum. To avoid this, I reject dualism and say a mind is part of the electrical activity of a body.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by Talishi]

Are you under the impression that anything you have just said there applies to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses? Or anything I wrote? I ask because the form looks a bit like you are offering a counter argument but obviously not to anything I wrote, so I can only presume you are just exploring the various aspects of your own beliefs.

Well... enjoy,

JW

[Talishi]

[Replying to post 18 by Talishi]

Are you under the impression that anything you have just said there applies to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses? Or anything I wrote? I ask because the form looks a bit like you are offering a counter argument but obviously not to anything I wrote, so I can only presume you are just exploring the various aspects of your own beliefs.

Well... enjoy,

JW

Sometimes the person who made the post to which I make a reply falls under a temporary delusion that there is no audience other than myself and that person. When that happens the other person may take it as an affront to have their own beliefs read back to them. But in reality the only thing I do is respond to each post as it comes, without considering the beliefs of the person who posted it, or their possible agenda, or their motivations, or their politics, their level of education, what gender they are and what gender makes their tail wag faster. That seems to be in conformity with the spirit of this forum.