Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is clearly contradicted by the verse you are referring to above. The body is killed separately from the soul, so clearly the soul is not bound up in the body.
Matthew 10:28 clearly contradicts the notion that the soul is destroyed with the body until the resurrection. You are taking Matthew 10:28 and turning it completely on its head.
The point was that ‘life’ clearly doesn’t work as a translation in either of these cases.
A sword will pierce you? No, that doesn’t work either. Clearly it is not speaking of either ‘life’ or the physical part of ‘you’. It is speaking of a non-physical part of their being.
But once again it is clearly part of ‘me’ that is not physical. You can’t physically go to Hell.
That doesn’t make any sense at all, Mike. Come on now, does this make sense: May your whole spirit, the whole you and your body be kept blameless.
No, this is clearly not speaking of the body. The body wars against the soul and spirit (Romans 7:23, Galatians 5:17). It is not the physical part of ‘yourselves’ that is being spoken of here.
Once again, that is totally redundant. “May you prosper and may you prosper.” Right. That really clears things up, Mike.
Completely dead beings. It says that they were slain, Mike. It is not in past tense, it is in present tense. Going on to verse 11 it says:
No psyche does not mean corpse. Nephesh can mean corpse, not psyche. Nephesh can also mean anything from fish to perfume. Nephesh is a much broader term that is harder to pin down, unlike psyche.
Every example you give in post #50 is from the Old Testament, not a single one is from the New Testament. You are only addressing the meaning of nephesh, not psyche. The definition of psyche is clearly much more narrow than the definition of nephesh.
LutheranMafia said:Originally Posted by gradyll
many of those you can't substitute soul for life. The translators know what they are talking about. You can't substitute all the definitions in strongs simply because one likes the theology. You know?Now this was my point in a nutshell.
That is why I run criss-cross across more than a dozen different interpretations, as well as going back to the original Greek at BlueLetterBible.org.
I didn't claim you can, I stated that Gradyll had summed up my argument in a nutshell. It is very clear that psyche means much more than just one's physical existence. It is something that goes beyond death.
I made numerous other references to usages of the word psyche that clearly defy a reductionist materialist interpretation such as yours. The whole of the Bible defies atheistic materialist reductionist interpretations.
That is because, with one exception that I missed (which thoroughly contradicts you I should add) all of your references were to the OT which is out of context. Psyche and nephesh are not the same.
How can psyche be bound up with the body when it is destroyed in a completely different way, and for those of us on the side of light, the psyche is not destroyed at all, but the body will be. Your assertions makes no sense, Matthew 10:28 clearly and plainly contradicts the notion that the psyche is bound up with the body.
They are similar but not the same. Psyche does not refer to dead bodies, perfume or fish. Your argument only works when limiting yourself to trying to distort the OT concept of nephesh. Your argument falls flat on it's face when you attempt to apply it to the NT psyche.
There is one, but I apologize for missing it since it clearly contradicts your argument.
Still they are profoundly different, as any reasonable student of the Bible will agree.
Now what was that, "one third of their usage refers to life beyond death"?? Doesn't that contradict your whole thesis that the soul dies with the body? And there it is listed, Mt 10:28. Mt 10:28 clearly refers to life beyond death as your own source asserts.
Let me give you something to think about concerning this verse from my 'salvation process' POV.
Well, I certainly don't believe in Once Saved Always Saved theology.Let me give you something to think about concerning this verse from my 'salvation process' POV.
Luke 21:19 By your endurance you will gain your lives/souls.
This verse is merely talking about the progressive salvation of ones soul which is worked out with fear and trembling.
1 Peter 1:9 As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls.
1PE 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth...
Soul salvation isn't finished at the initiation of your faith walk. Purification is a process.
There isn't much for me to sink my teeth into here, I agree with all of your statements. It is a funny thing how the internet doesn't seem to foster a sense of community among the like minded as much as promote intense debate among those of opposing ideologies. But I must say that those are some fascinating verses that use the term soul.
Alright, I apologize. But you must understand that when I say that your arguments are materialist and reductionist that to my mind means atheistic, because atheists rely so heavily on materialistic and reductionistic arguments. I'm not saying that you are an atheist, but rather that you use some arguments that run parallel to the arguments atheists. In the future I will not use the word atheistic, but when I say that your arguments are materialist and reductionist, you will know what I mean. (Do you understand what reductionist means?)
Only the other occurances of nephesh do not count, I took into account many other uses of the word psyche. My list of verses where psyche clearly can't be interpreted as 'life' was rather long. It is you who have come to an exclusive view about the interpretation of nephesh then try to apply this to psyche in a way that clearly falls apart. Nephesh is confusing so it is easy for you to pick out the meaning you want and run with it, but psyche is not so confusing, it is much more focused, and your argument clearly falls apart when applied to psyche, which in turn strongly suggests that your interpretation of nephesh is also wrong.
I was raised Lutheran. I'm not sure what I am now, but I tend to be orthodox in my theology, so Lutheran fits me as well as any denomination.
I already know how easy it is to misinterpret nephesh, because I have seen it done here on ChristianForums so often. This psychologist seems to have a similarly materialistic reductionistic point of view, but it is hard to tell because he rambles on quite a bit. But the beginning starts out with a pet peeve of mine. It really gets on my nerves the way people rail against the supposed Greek influence in orthodox theology and that their understanding is so much clearer than orthodox tradition. As if Jesus set people on the wrong foot. If orthodox theology is wrong then the truth is lost and hopelessly impossible to find again. As far as I am concerned it is either orthodoxy or nothing. If the orthodox tradition can't be trusted then how much less trustworthy is the opinion of modern scholars who clearly aren't under the influence of the Holy Spirit the way the writers of the Bible were?
Dang. I mean dang. Orthodoxy is build on a pyramid of one lie after another. How the heck can the "writers of the Bible" (?) have the Holy Spirit if they have to lie about who wrote what? You are better off with "nothing". Least ways you can start with a clean slate, and hope to find the Truth without digging through an obfuscating veil of lies and half baked superstitions. There were over four hundred pounds of apologetics on my library shelves to explain orthodox positions, to explain away everything from the Great Flood to how when Jesus said "All" He didn't really mean all. I won't pretend to be one of those great scholars, but I know several personally, and your ass is sucking canal water if you are going to compare any church tradition to the hard work that these men and women have put into research, cutting through all the bull-cake that "orthodoxy" has put out there as factual. You know the difference between researchers and orthodox tradition? Researchers are honest. I would much rather put my faith in a researcher who does not claim divine guidance than a liar who does. So lose the attitude.
