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 )

[Hawkins]

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 )

Soul is more likely something residing in another space, it's not inside our 3D environment.

On the other hand, our science is experiment/observation based, so science doesn't work in exploring soul unless we can physically go to another space to do experiments and observations to gather the so-called evidence.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 150 by onewithhim]

I don't follow you at all here. I Cor. 11:30 simply says, " That is why some of you became feeble and sick and died." It says nothing bout what happens when they have died. I Thess. 4:13 simply speaks of those "who sleep in death." It doesn't say how long and it doesn't necessarily mean they are not conscious. Like almost all biblical statements about the afterlife, details at 11.

Do you compare versions at all? Do you go back to the word in question in its original language, as per an Interlinear Bible?

I Corinthians 11:30 says in the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version, for example (respectively): "For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number SLEEP"; "That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP."

Obviously the Christians then knew that when someone died they were no longer conscious (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10) and would be AS IF asleep. No consciousness, no activity, nothing.

Your idea about someone living on immediately after death is shattered by the evidence that the disciples AND Jesus taught that death is like a sleep in which a person knows nothing, RATHER THAN a person's spirit immediately going out of the body, fully conscious.

[JehovahsWitness]

As I said, sorry. I'll refer to the JW's from now on.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Really you must refer to your bible here. Abraham is reported to be addressing Yahweh when he asks the moral question, will you destroy the city if there is one moral man within.. Abraham was questioning God here.

Really you must try to understand that YHWH, from whom all life and matter and everything else comes, cannot limit Himself to a little tiny speck of matter in the Milky Way. He created everything! You have to open up you mind from its cramped space.

The angel that is said to be YHWH is YHWH's REPRESENTATIVE. Abraham was certainly posing his questions to God, as YHWH's rep would listen to, as a courtesy to Abraham who could not see YHWH but would be able to see His representative.

Abraham never actually said anything that would lead us to believe that he thought he was speaking directly to Jehovah. He realized that the angel was a messenger, and he was speaking AS IF to Jehovah. That can very easily be accepted as a possibility, and I accept it.

[JehovahsWitness]

. I find "Jehovah" to be highly distasteful and blasphemous, as it represents a serious mistranslation of YHWH. Perhaps you would do me the same courtesy and refer to God by his proper, chosen name, YHWH, in the future?

JEHOVAH is the name of OUR God, the one we worship (The God we worship has no problem with the form Jehovah). When I post I am mostly posting about our God (Jehovah) but of course, I happy to refer to YOUR God by any term or name you find acceptable.

What is the name of your god?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 163 by hoghead1]

Except for the ancient Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses because it is not a bible teaching. The bible is unique in that it teaches that we don't have an invisible part of us that survives death, that the soul is the whole physical person that ceases to exist at death.

But that that person can be resurrected (re-created) to live again if that be God's will.

JW

Jews were not given the knowledge of life after death because they were not ready for it but we do have a story of Saul being 'brought up' and was spoken to.
JWs choose not to believe and it is their prerogative.

We Christians believe it because it is Jesus' teaching.

"You Christians"? You Christians that go to war and kill people just because your particular government tells you to (never mind that Jesus said NOT to)? Pardon me while I go get a couple aspirin.

You say that God didn't tell the Jews about life after death "because they were not ready for it"? How could anyone possibly be NOT READY to learn the truth about what happens after we die? If it was true that the person lives on after death, I'm sure God would've made it clear to them. Why would He want humans to be ignorant of it for THOUSANDS OF YEARS? You've got to start listening to somebody else besides your clergyperson.

Get straight on your stories. It wasn't SAUL that was being "called up" in your example. It was SAMUEL. Pay closer attention to your facts. When Saul went to the medium at Endor, for some inexplicable reason he wanted to try and contact Samuel, to get some advice (which he didn't care about when Samuel was alive). In spite of knowing that attempting to "contact the dead" was forbidden in the Law! (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) Why do you think it was forbidden? Surely God would not look ascance on anyone that wanted to hear what a dead prophet had to say! What possible harm could there be with that? It was because people would be contacting not a dead person but a DEMON. Use your thinking ability, Monta. In Saul's case, it was a demon who presented itself exactly like Samuel.

Do some more meditating on Ecclesiastes 9:5,10. Then go to Ecclesiastes 12:7 and harmonize the two scriptures (written by the same person). They do not contradict each other. Learn what "spirit" actually means in that case.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 164 by JehovahsWitness]

That may be true of the JDubs, but it is not true of the ancient Jews. In the older parts of teh Bible, everyone, the wicked and the righteous, and all animals go to Sheol. It was neither a heaven nor a hell. it was a very bleak place, full of weak, trembling shades, as we read in Job 36:5. So ,even in the early days, the Jews believed in survival beyond the grave, though it certainly was not a fun place. Later, the belief system changed and focused on a richer hereafter, as we find in Dan. 12:2 and Isa. 26. By the time of Christ, it was widely believed that the righteous go to a place of comfort, as the wicked to eternal torment.

So, you are free to believe as you want, but you also have a responsibility of accurately representing the Bible. Having a secret committee of "translators" deliberately change the wording of Scripture as was done with the NRT, so that it squares with your anti-trinitarian and anti-hell approach is not a responsible or respectable thing.

Throughout the entire Bible both the righteous and the unrighteous go to "Sheol" or "Hades," depending on if the verses are Hebrew or Greek. You are correct, Sheol/Hades is not heaven, and it surely isn't hell-fire (since it does not exist). Yes, THE GRAVE is a "very bleak place." Not a nice place to be, though the ones going there do not know it, thankfully.

I don't see your point about Job 36:5. I don't know what Bible version(s) you use, as you never indicate such, but every one that I look at doesn't say anything about Sheol in that verse. "Behold, God is mighty, and despiseth not any: he is mighty in strength and wisdom." (KJV)

There is no indication that the Jews believed in survival beyond the grave. In fact they wrote about there being NOTHING in the grave....no thought, no action, nothing. This was written by a Jew with a very high IQ, undoubtedly, who knew what was actually going on:

"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:10)


Having said that, Job looked forward to the Resurrection, not immediate survival after death. "Man dies and lies prostrate. Man expires, and where is he? As water evaporates from the sea, and a river becomes parched and dried up, so man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, he will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep....Oh that You would set a limit for me and remember me! If a man dies, will he live again?...You will call, and I will answer you; You will long for the work of Your hands." (Job 14:10-15, NASB)

So the ancients DID look forward to the Resurrection, after "lying prostrate" in the grave, not being anywhere else. There is nothing to indicate that a person goes on living immediately after death.

YOUR clinging to pagan beliefs and telling others that they are true is the height of irresponsibility. Anyone who knows many fancy words and can weave them together in a way that sounds like they know what they are talking about can get someone to publish their balderdash. Very smooth.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to hoghead1]

I did mention Saul but I also think that most Jews then and today do not see life after death the way we see it in NT.

I am not aware of the term 'eternal life' in OT.

Have you actually read the O.T.? It is all about preparation for the coming of the Messiah---God's anointed one who will give back life to mankind. Eternal life. God told Abraham that it would be by means of his descendants that "all nations of the earth will bless themselves." (Genesis 22:18) How would the nations be blessed? They would be able to live forever! What other blessing would be that important that it would be repeated throughout the Bible? Isaiah 9:6,7 brings this to the fore once again: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government [of the whole earth] will rest on his shoulders;...There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace...from then on and FOREVERMORE."

That sounds like "eternal life" to me. Isaiah 11:1-9 also relates to us what it will be like under the Messiah's rule, right here on Earth.

"A shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse [King David's father; and of course you know that the Messiah would come from the line of David], and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD [YHWH] will rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding....He will not judge by what his eyes see, nor make a decision by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth....And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling will feed together; and a little boy will lead them....They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD [YHWH] as the waters cover the sea." Doesn't this sound like eternal life on Earth, under the reign of the Christ?

[onewithhim]

Im not sure exactly why were having to prove a soul exists on this board where the Bible is considered authoritative and it clearly says one exists.

According to the source regarded as authoritative on this board, the soul is the immaterial part of man that exists eternally and apart from the body. It will be separated at death and will be reunited at the resurrection of the dead.

If one wishes to debate the existence of the soul then I would invite them to take the question to the appropriate board.

But the source you refer to DOES NOT say that the soul is the IMMATERIAL part of man. A person's soul has blood in its veins, it eats solid food, it drinks water, it can even be dead. Nowhere does the Bible say that the soul exists eternally or separates from the body! I guess you have missed all the discussion about that on this thread.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 205 by hoghead1]

[Replying to post 182 by Jehovahs Witness]

Hoghead1 wrote:

. I find "Jehovah" to be highly distasteful and blasphemous, as it represents a serious mistranslation of YHWH. Perhaps you would do me the same courtesy and refer to God by his proper, chosen name, YHWH, in the future?

--------------------------------
[Replying to post 200 by hoghead1]

Tigger2 wrote:

Perhaps you will refer to Jesus by his proper, given name in the future? And James, John, Jeremiah, etc.?

[Replying to post 201 by tigger2]

Hoghead1 wrote:

No, that is beside the point here. There names were Latinized, then Anglicized, something which is bound to happen. The name "Jehovah" is in a wholly different category. It was never intended to be an Anglicization. It was taken to be the actual name of God in the OT. That was due to the fact the KJV translators, for example, did not adequately understand Jewish tradition and how the vowel indicators worked. Hence, later, more accurate translations of the Bible dropped it.

------------------------------------------
So you are terribly offended by the transliteration of YHWH which is common in English (Jehovah). It has been common knowledge for centuries that Jehovah is not how it would have been pronounced originally. But, like nearly all names in scripture, the exact pronunciation of YHWH has been lost. Nevertheless, Jehovah has become a standard transliteration in English. See Part E of Serious Research? -
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... p?t=31160

What is truly highly distasteful and blasphemous is the complete removal of the personal name of God and in its place the substitution of a word (usually in all capitals: LORD) which is neither an honest transliteration nor an honest translation of YHWH.

So later, more accurate translations of the Bible have not just eliminated the only personal name of God in the thousands of places it is found in the OT texts but have added a dishonest, non-scriptural translation in its place!

If Jehovah (or another transliteration, e.g., Yahweh or Yehowah) is not to be used because that is not how it was originally pronounced and, therefore, is highly distasteful and blasphemous to a few, then how is it that the personal name of Jesus is not equally offensive to a billion members of Christendom who call Jesus God? It is not even close to how those who knew him in person pronounced his name (probably Yehoshua) - See part E in above link.