Are soul and spirit the same?What are they in bible context?

[Soapy]

The soul and the spirit are not the same thing...thats why they are different words. "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit" - Heb 4:12.

I think part of the issue is what you believe in your heart. It seems you think the soul and/or the spirit is an essence of our personality that remains after death. Thats not a scriptural teaching. The scriptures teach "the dead know nothing"- Eccl 9:5 "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten."

In the OT the soul is life or the life of a person or animal which you found to be true. You think God changed the meaning or the writers did but they didnt. You changed your understanding. If you keep the original meaning as you study scripture youll get the understanding of the verse. Previous verses referring to soul in the scriptures werent talking about the judgment seat like Jesus was‐thats why it can seem different. But its an illustrative point‐ the life(soul) living after the judgment is up to God, not man. Jesus point in Mt 10 is that his followers will be hated, even killed, but dont worry about it because there is a resurrection. Worry about being judged unrighteous and being destroyed.

Mt 10
"Further, brother will hand brother over to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against parents and will have them put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all people on account of my name, but the one who has endured to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives. 24 “A student is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25 It is enough for the student to become as his teacher, and the slave as his master. If people have called the master of the house Be·elʹze·bub, how much more those of his household? 26 So do not fear them, for there is nothing covered over that will not become uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. 27 What I tell you in the darkness, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, preach from the housetops. 28 And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna. 29 Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So have no fear; you are worth more than many sparrows."

Please know or remember this: When the question of:

• If God is three persons and Man is image of God, is Man three persons also?

Trinity was stymied at this question since it stands to ‘reason’ that an image should be as its source:

• Trinity says God is three so man should be three!!

However, no ‘Three Parts’ could be constructed from the Old Testament scriptures .. . What to do?

Eventually the smarties of trinity ideology came up with what they thought was a brilliant idea:

• Call the Soul another PART of a man!!

That way man now is:

1. Soul
2. Spirit
3. Body

Job done… so they thought. They didn’t reckon anyone would question their result - no one was allowed to question their belief without pain and suffering!!!

However, today, where we can both read and question false beliefs, we ask how they came to believe in a three-person man since the word ‘Soul’ is simply referring to Spirit and Soul!

I’m rushing here… but since Brian2 says Soul is the same as Spirit, doesn’t that destroy the three part man to the detriment of the trinitarian ideology - we’re back to the same question of how is man image of God as two parts when the source, God, is there trinity parts?

 

[Soapy]

Which is likely to be true and why?

1. ‘O LORD, save my Soul: both body and Spirit’
2. O LORD, save my Spirit: body and Soul’
3. O LORD, save my Soul and Body and Spirit

 

[seekandfind]

Yes OK, it does not matter if soul and spirit are different words with different (but overlapping) meanings.



It's true that the dead know nothing about what is happening in the realm of the living and I imagine there also is nothing to know in the realm of the dead. There is no more reward or eventually there is no memory of them, it is forgotten, and this reward and memory are in the realm of the living, under the sun. It is contrasting the state of the dead with the state of the living.
That the dead know nothing is not saying that there is not an essence of us that remains after death.
The idea that there is no spiritual soul that lives on after death of the body not only denies what Jesus told us in Matt 10:28, the whole idea is built on false ideas about some OT verses.
IOWs there are no passages in the OT or NT that tell us that the dead do not exist any more.
eg Psalm 146:4 should be translated
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day their plans come to nothing.
And passages which say there is no praising God in sheol are talking specifically about public worship,,,,,,,,,, "praise" being the word that is used for that.
I have already pointed out that Eccles 9:5 is contrasting the state of the living with the state of the dead, not saying that the dead do not exist.



In the OT the meaning of soul can be the life of the person and also is the whole person (as in Gen 2:7). There are also places where it can refer to the spiritual essence of the person that leaves the body at death.
God does not change the meaning of anything, but in the NT the idea of an essence of the person is more prominent.
A person has a body, a person is a soul.
In the NT souls of martyrs are in heaven and speak to God. (eg Rev 6:9-11)

One thing that I never get any JW to answer is how God can resurrect someone who is non existent. How is that not just making a copy of the person? A copy that is not the actual person. And I give the example of God making a body and putting my memories etc in the body so that it things it is me, and then when I, the original, comes along, I know that it is not me, it is only a copy.
The whole idea is nonsensical imo.

You claim soul and spirit have overlapping meanings. They dont.

Yes, in Revelation souls are in heaven under an alter. An alter is a physical object, which physical objects arent in heaven ...but revelation is mostly symbolic visions. Do you believe real beasts with several heads are coming?

How can God resurrect the non-existant?
Wasnt there a time when there was nothing and then God made everything? Philisophics on "a copy" are irrelevent. What matters is what God says. Why would you put Gods capabilities in a box relying on your own understanding of what he can or cant do? The dead are not exactly non-existant- they are in His memory....note they arent actually alive until the resurrection.
"In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised up, even Moses made known in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him." Lk 20:36-38
Again Mt 10:28 is clearly talking about the time of judgment which is AFTER the resurrection.

 

[amazing grace]

You claim soul and spirit have overlapping meanings. They dont.

Yes, in Revelation souls are in heaven under an alter. An alter is a physical object, which physical objects arent in heaven ...but revelation is mostly symbolic visions. Do you believe real beasts with several heads are coming?

How can God resurrect the non-existant?
Wasnt there a time when there was nothing and then God made everything? Philisophics on "a copy" are irrelevent. What matters is what God says. Why would you put Gods capabilities in a box relying on your own understanding of what he can or cant do? The dead are not exactly non-existant- they are in His memory....note they arent actually alive until the resurrection.

YES! God knows and remembers His children, even the hairs on our head are numbered. Jesus knows his sheep and a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out!!!

"In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised up, even Moses made known in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him." Lk 20:36-38
Again Mt 10:28 is clearly talking about the time of judgment which is AFTER the resurrection.

YES! I tried to tell Brian2 basically the same thing concerning Matt. 10:28 - he didn't listen then either.

 

[seekandfind]

YES! God knows and remembers His children, even the hairs on our head are numbered. Jesus knows his sheep and a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out!!!

YES! I tried to tell Brian2 basically the same thing concerning Matt. 10:28 - he didn't listen then either.

Yeah, when someone really wants to believe what they choose it blinds them to Gods word. It takes humility to cast your own thoughts aside and trust in God and his truths.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Christian Gnostics Stand Back From Hebrew and Greek Tradition Transcending the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament/Greek Scriptures Dichotomy. To find out the Real meaning of Soul and Spirit that Elohim/God teaches in the Holy Scriptures/Bible you must Embrace Christian Gnosticism.

I understand the merit to certain religious practices. (Practices as opposed to beliefs, I mean.) Like, I understand how meditation can lead to understanding, for example.

But when it comes to doctrines, those are beliefs. And I see little merit in "embracing a doctrine" in order to understand something better. "Embracing a doctrine" makes you prejudiced. It doesn't clarify your view of things. It obscures it.

That's not a knock against Gnosticism. I've spoken to some incredibly intelligent, reasonable, and interesting Gnostics before. My beef is with the idea that assuming a religious doctrine allows me to see things that my other intellectual faculties (like, my imagination) cannot. Questions about what Self is, are intellectual questions with declarative answers. I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm not going to believe in some doctrine just to get them.

@Ella S. Do you think that accepting a doctrine (like Gnosticism) can lead to a greater understanding of what Self is? I'm curious what your take is.

 

[syo]

Soul and spirit are not the same.

 

[Ella S.]

I understand the merit to certain religious practices. (Practices as opposed to beliefs, I mean.) Like, I understand how meditation can lead to understanding, for example.

But when it comes to doctrines, those are beliefs. And I see little merit in "embracing a doctrine" in order to understand something better. "Embracing a doctrine" makes you prejudiced. It doesn't clarify your view of things. It obscures it.

That's not a knock against Gnosticism. I've spoken to some incredibly intelligent, reasonable, and interesting Gnostics before. My beef is with the idea that assuming a religious doctrine allows me to see things that my other intellectual faculties (like, my imagination) cannot. Questions about what Self is, are intellectual questions with declarative answers. I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm not going to believe in some doctrine just to get them.

@Ella S. Do you think that accepting a doctrine (like Gnosticism) can lead to a greater understanding of what Self is? I'm curious what your take is.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think it's important to point out that Gnosticism is a lot less about doctrine and a lot more about practice. Ancient Gnostics were infamous for their flirtations with mysticism and their willingness to make idiosyncratic, esoteric interpretations of scriptures and figures. There was some secret knowledge involved in the process, to be fair, but a heavy emphasis was placed on inner contemplation and spiritual alchemy.

There's a reason why Jung used the Gnostics as the primary guide for understanding how to integrate the unconscious to achieve individuation. Jung's interpretations are filled with modern exegesis, but the core structure remains in tact, in my opinion.

It's just that the Gnostics probably would have identified what Jung calls the "Self" with either Sophia or the Logos, although Jung himself takes a similar stance in some of his works.

Now, I'm not entirely convinced that the "Self" is even a real thing, as far as the science of psychology is concerned. I think it's probably an antiquated concept by now. I might even argue that the main ideas behind the concept of the Self were heavily influenced by Gnostic practices.

Doctrine in Gnosticism was similar to a rudimentary form of later alchemical steganography or the earlier mystery cults. We know this to be the case because of surviving Gnostic texts like "Visions of Zosimos" and the ire the mystical esotericism earned them from other contemporary sources. The doctrine is more of a metaphorical guide to achieving specific states of consciousness, and it's linked to both jnana yoga and hesychasm.

Not all Gnostic groups were like that. The Sethians were, maybe including the Ophites and Cainites if they existed. The Manichaens probably were. The Mandaens might have been at one time. The Valentinians and Cathars were a lot more like minor Christian off-shoots, though. So it does depend a bit.

My point is that the acceptance of doctrine played an important role in the mystical process for the ancient Gnostics, but that acceptance doesn't necessarily take on the character one might ordinarily expect.

 

[Elihoenai]

I understand the merit to certain religious practices. (Practices as opposed to beliefs, I mean.) Like, I understand how meditation can lead to understanding, for example.

But when it comes to doctrines, those are beliefs. And I see little merit in "embracing a doctrine" in order to understand something better. "Embracing a doctrine" makes you prejudiced. It doesn't clarify your view of things. It obscures it.

That's not a knock against Gnosticism. I've spoken to some incredibly intelligent, reasonable, and interesting Gnostics before. My beef is with the idea that assuming a religious doctrine allows me to see things that my other intellectual faculties (like, my imagination) cannot. Questions about what Self is, are intellectual questions with declarative answers. I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm not going to believe in some doctrine just to get them.

@Ella S. Do you think that accepting a doctrine (like Gnosticism) can lead to a greater understanding of what Self is? I'm curious what your take is.

Matthew 26:17-18

17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.


Religious Doctrines Describe Religious Practices. Religious Ritual Practices to be exact. Christian Gnosticism is All About Religious Ritual Practice Towards Elohim/God and is Not an Intellectual Exercise. For example, in Matthew 26 Yeshua/Jesus gives Christian Gnostic Religious Doctrine on how to Practice the Preparation to eat the Passover.

Yes, Embracing A Doctrine, makes you Prejudiced, Bigoted and Biased and this is a Requirement and Badge of Honour for Real Religious Practitioners. When you find the Truth, why wouldn't you be Partial/Biased? Do you, @vulcanlogician, believe there is such a thing as Truth?

 

[Elihoenai]

Yeah, absolutely.

I think it's important to point out that Gnosticism is a lot less about doctrine and a lot more about practice. Ancient Gnostics were infamous for their flirtations with mysticism and their willingness to make idiosyncratic, esoteric interpretations of scriptures and figures. There was some secret knowledge involved in the process, to be fair, but a heavy emphasis was placed on inner contemplation and spiritual alchemy.

There's a reason why Jung used the Gnostics as the primary guide for understanding how to integrate the unconscious to achieve individuation. Jung's interpretations are filled with modern exegesis, but the core structure remains in tact, in my opinion.

It's just that the Gnostics probably would have identified what Jung calls the "Self" with either Sophia or the Logos, although Jung himself takes a similar stance in some of his works.

Now, I'm not entirely convinced that the "Self" is even a real thing, as far as the science of psychology is concerned. I think it's probably an antiquated concept by now. I might even argue that the main ideas behind the concept of the Self were heavily influenced by Gnostic practices.

Doctrine in Gnosticism was similar to a rudimentary form of later alchemical steganography or the earlier mystery cults. We know this to be the case because of surviving Gnostic texts like "Visions of Zosimos" and the ire the mystical esotericism earned them from other contemporary sources. The doctrine is more of a metaphorical guide to achieving specific states of consciousness, and it's linked to both jnana yoga and hesychasm.

Not all Gnostic groups were like that. The Sethians were, maybe including the Ophites and Cainites if they existed. The Manichaens probably were. The Mandaens might have been at one time. The Valentinians and Cathars were a lot more like minor Christian off-shoots, though. So it does depend a bit.

My point is that the acceptance of doctrine played an important role in the mystical process for the ancient Gnostics, but that acceptance doesn't necessarily take on the character one might ordinarily expect.

1 Corinthians 15:31

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Christian Gnosticism is All About the Total Annihilation/Destruction of the Self To Elohim/God. In that Journey of the Total Annihilation/Destruction of the Self To Elohim/God you Experience Flesh/Body, Soul and Spirit.

 

[Elihoenai]

Which is likely to be true and why?

1. ‘O LORD, save my Soul: both body and Spirit’
2. O LORD, save my Spirit: body and Soul’
3. O LORD, save my Soul and Body and Spirit

Psalm 130

130 Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord.

2 Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.

3 If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

5 I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.

6 My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.

7 Let Israel hope in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.

8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.


Psalms 120-134 called Song of Ascents Describes Elevation.


Sons of Korah - Psalm 130 - Nature Visuals

 

[Brickjectivity]

Building a ship in a bottle with tweezers: a soul is passed on from father to child. This is most clearly evidenced in Hebrew 7:9 where the writer admits we can say "Levi was in Abraham tithing to Melchizedek."

Levi inherits a soul from Abraham.

Similarly in Matthew 11:13-14 Jesus says that John is Elijah.

So souls are inherited, but Jesus disagrees with the typical Jew about *how* they are inherited. He says John is Elijah, and he says so in spite of the fact that there is no succession feom Elijah to John. There is no line of laying on of hands or discipleship.

Similarly Hebrews argues that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek in spite of having no line of succession. Like Melchizedek, Jesus appears without special schooling, without the laying on of hands. Without these things he inherits a special soul.

John 3 contains a story of Jesus explaining this to Nicodemus. He says the spirit goes where it wills.

From this we see Pauls argument that we receive the spirit of adoption, calling from within us "Father!" As prodigals. As soil which was found by a seed tossed into the breeze. As former orphans and aliens, now embraced.

 

[Soapy]

Psalm 130

130 Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord.

2 Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.

3 If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

5 I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.

6 My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.

7 Let Israel hope in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.

8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.


Psalms 120-134 called Song of Ascents Describes Elevation.


Sons of Korah - Psalm 130 - Nature Visuals

Hi, I’m not at all sure what you answered.

I guess that what I’m asking is:

• Can the word ‘Soul’ be directly substituted with ‘I’, ‘Me’, ‘Myself’, ‘Person’ (as appropriate)

As in:

• ‘O YHWH, save my Soul’
  • ‘I YHWH, save Me’
• ‘My Soul hungers for truth’
  • ‘I hunger for truth’
• ‘That day, twenty thousand SOULS were killed’
  • That day, twenty thousand PEOPLE were killed’
• ‘The Soul that sins shall die*’
  • ‘The PERSON who sins shall die*’

(* ‘Die’ means the body will be made to decay and the Spirit will become dormant, non-communicative awaiting the day of judgement)

 

[Ella S.]

1 Corinthians 15:31

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Christian Gnosticism is All About the Total Annihilation/Destruction of the Self To Elohim/God. In that Journey of the Total Annihilation/Destruction of the Self To Elohim/God you Experience Flesh/Body, Soul and Spirit.

Quite, although this is in a different sense than the Jungian one. What you call the Self, Jung would more likely call the Ego.

To Jung, the Self could be identified as our inner reflection of Phanes. It's similar to the Hindu concept of atman, where our truest self is a part of God. To Jung, this is because our individual Selves are microcosmic reflections of the whole of the collective unconscious.

Jung wrote quite a bit on ego death. Importantly, ego death is associated with nigredo/blackening, which is the first phase of Gnostic/Hermetic alchemy.

I think you could find more agreement with Jung than you might think.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes, Embracing A Doctrine, makes you Prejudiced, Bigoted and Biased and this is a Requirement and Badge of Honour for Real Religious Practitioners. When you find the Truth, why wouldn't you be Partial/Biased? Do you, @vulcanlogician, believe there is such a thing as Truth?

I do think that there is an accurate way to understand the world (and by virtue of this, there must also be inaccurate ways). I think that there is one reality that we live in, and this reality is a certain way. I reject the idea that human opinions (or any such thing) has any power over what the fact of the matter really is. If God exists, no amount of atheists can make it not so... but neither can a bunch of believers make God "blink" into existence if he wasn't already there in the first place. Long story short, I do accept, or come close to accepting that there is some kind of "capital T" Truth. But I also think that no one or no one group has monopolistic access to it. We know what we know. All of us are right about some things, and wrong about others.

I should apologize for my use of the word "prejudice." It can be a charged word (oftentimes implying bigotry). But that isn't how I meant it. In no way do I think that a doctrine makes a person necessarily bigoted. I meant "prejudice" in a more dry philosophical way... one that implies simple bias. And that is almost always what I mean when I use the term. And, my simple point was, seeing the world through a doctrinal lens invites copious biases. I didn't mean to imply that it makes a person bigoted.

We all have prejudices and biases. I have prejudices and biases. As do you, as I'm sure you'll admit.

There's nothing wrong with being biased. It's part of the human condition. What I think ought to be avoided is unchecked bias. I enjoy talking to religious folks because I am always looking for challenges to my own way of thinking. And because THEY disagree with my position about God, they are in a position to to test the strength of my truth-claims. People who agree with us often don't test the strength of our truth-claims. Often, they bolster them artificially.

I don't have a problem with faith. I think faith can be good for people, and --who knows?-- maybe faith can reveal truths that investigation and discourse cannot. I don't have an issue with the fact that others believe in God, and only oppose them when they try to influence society or government in a way that I think is irrational or morally unjustified. Otherwise, I find believers as a whole to be a fascinating group. Many of them are honest, sincere, and good people. And that goes a LONG way with me.

To answer your question: No. If I ever thought I "found the Truth" I wouldn't be partial or biased towards it. Quite the opposite. I'd want to throw everything but the kitchen sink at it to make sure I hadn't made an error. And, owing a lot to my peculiarities, that would probably end up being a life-long pursuit. Because every time I toss a kitchen sink or two at an idea or claim, I learn more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of that claim.

If a claim can survive continuous assaults from kitchen sinks thrown from all directions, well then, I've learned something. And I can share that knowledge with others. And I might assume some claims that survive the kitchen sink test, to be true, at least as far as I can tell. But I'll never say that I am done questioning something. If there is a serious objection to be raised, I say raise it. Investigate the issue, learn as much as you can. And THAT (as far as I can tell) is the best way to get closer to Truth.

 

[vulcanlogician]

My point is that the acceptance of doctrine played an important role in the mystical process for the ancient Gnostics, but that acceptance doesn't necessarily take on the character one might ordinarily expect.

I can see how a doctrine might play a role in enhancing practice. But I do have two minor objections on which I'd like to hear your opinion.

1) Once you have a mystical experience of the divine, doesn't that kind of make all doctrines irrelevant? I mean, if one genuinely makes contact with God, and receives truth directly from God, doesn't doctrine kind of "muddy the waters" a bit? Why continue to lean on doctrine, when you have access to the Source? Mind you, I'm not saying that doctrines can't help you "get to" God. That may be their one and only value. But once you've "gotten to God," haven't then doctrines outlived their usefulness?

2) Doctrines are dangerous. They can just as easily conceal the truth as bring the truth into focus. Just take a look at the utter dominance that Pauline Christianity had on Gnosticism as a whole. Even if you assume that Gnosticism is true, one must also admit that "doctrine" was its undoing. The Pauline interpretation was not only popular, it was used as a reason to oust the Gnostics and others from the (small "c") catholic church. And (as a fellow appreciator of Plato and Socrates) you must admit that the coercive aspects of doctrines sometimes interfere with the exchange of good ideas among intelligent people.

Especially when you have folks like Paul (and I think Paul was very well-meaning, and in general a nice guy)... but he formulated rigid beliefs. And he had no qualms about impressing those beliefs on his followers in order to control them. And centuries later, he still had a following, and these later followers were willing to burn people at the stake for the mere disagreement with Paul on any number of small matters. Whether he intended to or not, Paul created a monster. An incredibly violent monster that it took reasonable people centuries until they were able to even question the evil and the violence of it all. And even more centuries passed before they were able to put an end to it.

On the whole, Christianity has been a rather bloody affair. And, though I'm sure you have some nuance to add to that rather hamfisted statement, I have gathered, from our previous conversations, that you probably see this as deeply problematic (as I do).

Aren't doctrines dangerous? What would be the modern Gnostic and/or Sethian's response to the argument that doctrines are dangerous (so far as you can tell)? Does a contemporary Sethian insist on any doctrine at all? If so, which doctrines?

 

[Elihoenai]

Hi, I’m not at all sure what you answered.

I guess that what I’m asking is:

• Can the word ‘Soul’ be directly substituted with ‘I’, ‘Me’, ‘Myself’, ‘Person’ (as appropriate)

As in:

• ‘O YHWH, save my Soul’
  • ‘I YHWH, save Me’
• ‘My Soulhungers for truth’
  • ‘I hunger for truth’
• ‘That day, twenty thousand SOULSwere killed’
  • That day, twenty thousand PEOPLE were killed’
• ‘The Soulthat sins shall die*’
  • ‘The PERSON who sins shall die*’

(* ‘Die’ means the body will be made to decay and the Spirit will become dormant, non-communicative awaiting the day of judgement)

Hebrews 9:1

9 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Hi,

Yes certainly it can be substituted. Elohim/God is I Am Flesh, I Am Soul, I Am Spirit. Elohim/God is Omni.

The Levitical Priesthood is the Earthly/Fleshly Ministry.

 

[Elihoenai]

Quite, although this is in a different sense than the Jungian one. What you call the Self, Jung would more likely call the Ego.

To Jung, the Self could be identified as our inner reflection of Phanes. It's similar to the Hindu concept of atman, where our truest self is a part of God. To Jung, this is because our individual Selves are microcosmic reflections of the whole of the collective unconscious.

Jung wrote quite a bit on ego death. Importantly, ego death is associated with nigredo/blackening, which is the first phase of Gnostic/Hermetic alchemy.

I think you could find more agreement with Jung than you might think.

Acts 17:28

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


Elohim/God Manifest in Different ways to Different people. Elohim/God Created all the Religions and Wrote All the Books. Everything that Exists is Elohim/God. Jung, like Everything Else that exists, is Elohim's/God's Offspring.

 

[Elihoenai]

I do think that there is an accurate way to understand the world (and by virtue of this, there must also be inaccurate ways). I think that there is one reality that we live in, and this reality is a certain way. I reject the idea that human opinions (or any such thing) has any power over what the fact of the matter really is. If God exists, no amount of atheists can make it not so... but neither can a bunch of believers make God "blink" into existence if he wasn't already there in the first place. Long story short, I do accept, or come close to accepting that there is some kind of "capital T" Truth. But I also think that no one or no one group has monopolistic access to it. We know what we know. All of us are right about some things, and wrong about others.

I should apologize for my use of the word "prejudice." It can be a charged word (oftentimes implying bigotry). But that isn't how I meant it. In no way do I think that a doctrine makes a person necessarily bigoted. I meant "prejudice" in a more dry philosophical way... one that implies simple bias. And that is almost always what I mean when I use the term. And, my simple point was, seeing the world through a doctrinal lens invites copious biases. I didn't mean to imply that it makes a person bigoted.

We all have prejudices and biases. I have prejudices and biases. As do you, as I'm sure you'll admit.

There's nothing wrong with being biased. It's part of the human condition. What I think ought to be avoided is unchecked bias. I enjoy talking to religious folks because I am always looking for challenges to my own way of thinking. And because THEY disagree with my position about God, they are in a position to to test the strength of my truth-claims. People who agree with us often don't test the strength of our truth-claims. Often, they bolster them artificially.

I don't have a problem with faith. I think faith can be good for people, and --who knows?-- maybe faith can reveal truths that investigation and discourse cannot. I don't have an issue with the fact that others believe in God, and only oppose them when they try to influence society or government in a way that I think is irrational or morally unjustified. Otherwise, I find believers as a whole to be a fascinating group. Many of them are honest, sincere, and good people. And that goes a LONG way with me.

To answer your question: No. If I ever thought I "found the Truth" I wouldn't be partial or biased towards it. Quite the opposite. I'd want to throw everything but the kitchen sink at it to make sure I hadn't made an error. And, owing a lot to my peculiarities, that would probably end up being a life-long pursuit. Because every time I toss a kitchen sink or two at an idea or claim, I learn more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of that claim.

If a claim can survive continuous assaults from kitchen sinks thrown from all directions, well then, I've learned something. And I can share that knowledge with others. And I might assume some claims that survive the kitchen sink test, to be true, at least as far as I can tell. But I'll never say that I am done questioning something. If there is a serious objection to be raised, I say raise it. Investigate the issue, learn as much as you can. And THAT (as far as I can tell) is the best way to get closer to Truth.

Matthew 28:18

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


You sound Agnostic. Are you Agnostic?


True Religion is All About Law Keeping, Faith and Devotion To Elohim/God and Not About Science and Logic.


It's a Duty of Christians to Dominate and Influence Society. Elohim/God has given Bad Christians Dominion over all Governments and Peoples of the World. If Christians don't have the Dominion than Heathen Atheist will have the Dominion.


The Way to find the Truth is to Practice True Religion.

 

[Muffled]

The evidence is that scripture. An easier translation may help....


'So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'"

I believe that is a non-sequitur.