Do humans have a spirit?

[Ben Avraham]

1. Nothing?

Eze 37:24 "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them.​

Who is the "them" which David (singular--one shepherd--Ezekiel 34:23-24--, not shepherds--Ezekiel 34:2) will be king over?

Eze 37:19 say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand." '
Eze 37:21 "Then say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land;
Eze 37:22 and I will make them [12 tribes] one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. ​

Nothing. If you read Psalms 78:67-70, the Lord rejected the tabernacle of Joseph aka Israel the Ten Tribes by using the Assyrians to conquer them off according to Amos 5:2 and confirmed Judah to remain aa a Lamp in Jerusalem forever with David as their king aka the only shepherd over God's People. If you read "The Wars of the Jews" by Josephus, he speaks of 10% from the Ten Tribes escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South.
This is a reference to Isaiah 10:21.22 about the 10% that escaped Assyria. (Isaiah 6:13)

Later when the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, a new Jewish world order aka a New Covenant was established when the Tribal system ceased to exist and David became the only shepherd on over the whole people: Judah and all the Israelites that excaped Assyria. (Ezekiel 37:22)

​

 

[moorea944]

No its not. Its the word "RUaḤ". This word means "wind" or "spirit". As in the word "RUaḤ HaQoDeSH", "Holy Spirit".

IT's actually "rauch", Strongs 7307. It means breath, wind or spirit. Words can be written differenlty, like "soul' or "spirit". Spirit, esp, in the NT can be written as also a way of thinking. Soul in Hebrew is "Nephesh". 5315. It means a living, breathing person. A frame that is alive, a person, life, desire, passion. But NEVER we are given a soul. That is false doctrine.

 

[james2ko]

Nothing. If you read Psalms 78:67-70, the Lord rejected the tabernacle of Joseph aka Israel the Ten Tribes by using the Assyrians to conquer them off according to Amos 5:2 and confirmed Judah to remain aa a Lamp in Jerusalem forever with David as their king aka the only shepherd over God's People. If you read "The Wars of the Jews" by Josephus, he speaks of 10% from the Ten Tribes escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South.This is a reference to Isaiah 10:21.22 about the 10% that escaped Assyria. (Isaiah 6:13)

Once again reading Psalms 78:67-70 out of context. Look at vs 71. It clearly refers to 1 Samuel 16:11-13, when David was chosen as king over Judah and later over all of Israel (2 Samuel 5:4-5). This is confirmed when Psalms 78 is read in its contextual enumeration.

Later when the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, a new Jewish world order aka a New Covenant was established when the Tribal system ceased to exist and David became the only shepherd on over the whole people: Judah and all the Israelites that excaped Assyria. (Ezekiel 37:22)

When Ezekiel 37 was written, David was long dead. It is undoubtedly a prophecy about the future millennial kingdom, when both sticks (houses) will be resurrected and become one nation with the resurrected David as their king. Similar to the monarchial government from 1 Samuel 5:4-5.

There is no way this is referring to Judah and a remnant of Israel after the captivity because this temple is supposed to last forever (Ezekiel 37:26-28). Where is it today? It also cannot be a reference to 1st century Judah, because there was no covenant of peace (Ezekiel 37:26). As a matter of fact, the opposite was true. They were living under Roman rule, occupation, and oppression.

No matter how you slice it, Ben, this is a prophecy of a future time when David and the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:11)--not merely a remnant, as you suggest--will be resurrected and once again become one nation under king David. How exciting. May God speed that day!

 

[Tumah]

IT's actually "rauch", Strongs 7307. It means breath, wind or spirit. Words can be written differenlty, like "soul' or "spirit". Spirit, esp, in the NT can be written as also a way of thinking. Soul in Hebrew is "Nephesh". 5315. It means a living, breathing person. A frame that is alive, a person, life, desire, passion. But NEVER we are given a soul. That is false doctrine.

No, its actually Ruaḥ, like I said. There is no word "rauch" in the Hebrew language, nor would it be possible to spell such a word without adding more letters than the word currently has.

The word doesn't mean "breathe", it means as I originally said "spirit" or "wind". Perhaps "an insubstantial substance" would be a more accurate translation that includes both interpretations as in the case of the translation "wind" it doesn't mean "something windy/blowing".

The times that Strong's uses the translation of breath are inaccurate, although in some cases, the phrase that is being used may refer to the breath. For example "with the wind of his mouth (Job 15:30)" is referring to the breath. One of the problems with Strong's is that he doesn't differentiate between translation and interpretation.

Nefesh does not mean a living breathing person. Otherwise some verses aren't going to make any sense.
Lev. 17:11 "Because the living breathing person of the flesh is in the blood..."
Lev. 21:1 "And say to them, to a living breathing person do not defile..." (in reference to a dead body)
Lev. 21:11 "And on all dead living breathing persons, do not come..."

It also doesn't mean "life" as there is already a word that means that -"ḥay/ah/yim", as in:
Job 33:18 "He holds back the nefesh/soul from [the pit of] destruction, and his ḥayah/life from passing by weapon (lit. something that is sent out [to kill])"
Isa. 10:18 "...from nefesh/soul until flesh it will destroy..." (notice the contrast of spiritual soul with physical flesh - this wouldn't work if you translated nefesh as life, nor would the contrast make sense).

Nefesh means the soul. It relates to another word that shares its root "Nafash" meaning to re-energize (lit. 'soulify', return the soul). It also relates to the breath as does 'N'SHaMaH' (which comes from the same root as n'shimah- breath) and 'RUaḤ' (as demonstrated earlier). Hannah spills her Nefesh before G-d in 1 Sam. 1:15. And G-d spills His Ruaḥ on people in Joel 3:1. And David spills his speech in Psa. 142:3. The soul is given to the person through the nose, so roots related to the breath are used.

There is a phrase called "NeFeSH ḤaYaH" which means a "living soul". This refers to when the soul is giving life to the body. This means that there is also the possibility for a "dead soul" that is - a soul that is not giving life to the body. Hence "NeFeSH MeTH / NaFSHoTH MeTH (lit. dead soul / dead souls)" of Lev. 21:11, Num. 6:6, etc. are referring to dead bodies.

What's important to realize, is that although there are synonymous words in Biblical Hebrew, they all have distinct differences or connotations and no two words mean exactly the same thing unless they share the same root. So nefesh can't be translated as 'life' when there is already a word that directly means that. It can refer to life as a loanword. But it has to have its own meaning first and that means has to be different than the word ḥayah.

There are times that the word "nefesh" is used to refer to a person or creature, as in Lev. 21:1 above. But that's as a loanword from its original meaning of 'soul', much as the word 'ruaḥ' is sometimes used to refer to the breath and 'shalaḥ' is used to refer to a weapon.

 

[psychoslice]

I say no, we are like all animals, just a living organism that arises from the Source and goes back to the Source, and in between we just make up stories about the Source and our life here, we like to think we are all special and will never die.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I say no, we are like all animals, just a living organism that arises from the Source and goes back to the Source, and in between we just make up stories about the Source and our life here, we like to think we are all special and will never die.

Now, you have complicated things with confusion. You say above that "We are like animals." We just make up stories about the source where we have come from. If we are simply like animals, please, explain to us how animals make up stories about their source they came from.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Once again reading Psalms 78:67-70 out of context. Look at vs 71. It clearly refers to 1 Samuel 16:11-13, when David was chosen as king over Judah and later over all of Israel (2 Samuel 5:4-5). This is confirmed when Psalms 78 is read in its contextual enumeration.

When Ezekiel 37 was written, David was long dead. It is undoubtedly a prophecy about the future millennial kingdom, when both sticks (houses) will be resurrected and become one nation with the resurrected David as their king. Similar to the monarchial government from 1 Samuel 5:4-5.

There is no way this is referring to Judah and a remnant of Israel after the captivity because this temple is supposed to last forever (Ezekiel 37:26-28). Where is it today? It also cannot be a reference to 1st century Judah, because there was no covenant of peace (Ezekiel 37:26). As a matter of fact, the opposite was true. They were living under Roman rule, occupation, and oppression.

No matter how you slice it, Ben, this is a prophecy of a future time when David and the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:11)--not merely a remnant, as you suggest--will be resurrected and once again become one nation under king David. How exciting. May God speed that day!

Again, it does not matter how long had David been gone but, because of God's promise that his Tribe aka Judah would remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever for the sake of David according to I Kings 11:36, there is no distinction between the use of David and Judah as both mean the same.

 

[james2ko]

Again, it does not matter how long had David been gone but, because of God's promise that his Tribe aka Judah would remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever for the sake of David according to I Kings 11:36, there is no distinction between the use of David and Judah as both mean the same.

A forced interpretation unsupported by the text in order to justify a no resurrection dogma , as demonstrated in my previous posts.

 

[psychoslice]

Now, you have complicated things with confusion. You say above that "We are like animals." We just make up stories about the source where we have come from. If we are simply like animals, please, explain to us how animals make up stories about their source they came from.

Ha, all animals are not the same, as all dogs are not the same, simple isn't it ?.

 

[Ben Avraham]

A forced interpretation unsupported by the text in order to justify a no resurrection dogma , as demonstrated in my previous posts.

Okay, let me make this a little easier for you. According to Micah 4:2, "Instructions shall come from Zion, the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Tell me, instructions shall come from Zion the place or Zion the People? The Word of the Lord from the place called Jerusalem or from the Jewish People? So, the reference to Zion or to Jerusalem is to the People whom the Word of God shall come from. Does that work for you to understand that any reference to a long gone David is the same as to his actual Tribe of Judah?

 

[james2ko]

Okay, let me make this a little easier for you. According to Micah 4:2, "Instructions shall come from Zion, the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Tell me, instructions shall come from Zion the place or Zion the People? The Word of the Lord from the place called Jerusalem or from the Jewish People?

Easier? You just made your interpretation even more difficult to accept. The word of the Lord "originates" from God Himself. It never originates from a human(s), which is what you are suggesting.

So, the reference to Zion or to Jerusalem is to the People whom the Word of God shall come from. Does that work for you to understand that any reference to a long gone David is the same as to his actual Tribe of Judah?

Most definitely not. Your interpretation requires leaps of logic not supported by the text. Zion, as in Mount Zion, is a place in the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, not Judah, is called the city (ayar) of David. Jerusalem is only one city within the tribe of Judah. Judah is also a tribe within the nation (goy) of the same name (Judah) , consisting of two tribes, one of which David descended..

You are attempting to equate Mount Zion, which is only a place in Jerusalem, with the city of David (Jerusalem), then forcing the appellation of "Judah" for David. Thus jumping several unacceptable logic barriers to arrive at your interpretation.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Easier? You just made your interpretation even more difficult to accept. The word of the Lord "originates" from God Himself. It never originates from a human(s), which is what you are suggesting.

Most definitely not. Your interpretation requires leaps of logic not supported by the text. Zion, as in Mount Zion, is a place in the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, not Judah, is called the city (ayar) of David. Jerusalem is only one city within the tribe of Judah. Judah is also a tribe within the nation (goy) of the same name (Judah) , consisting of two tribes, one of which David descended..

You are attempting to equate Mount Zion, which is only a place in Jerusalem, with the city of David (Jerusalem), then forcing the appellation of "Judah" for David. Thus jumping several unacceptable logic barriers to arrive at your interpretation.

Oh! I understand now. You simply can't stand the idea to get instructions or the Word of God from a Jew. In that case, the only solution is to read the Tanach yourself. That's where I got that quote from. (Micah 4:2; Isaiah 2:3) I have the same feeling when some one gives me a quote as a reference to what he or she has said. I go straight to the quote and I have it.

 

[psychoslice]

No one has ever shown that a spirit existed, we have all sorts of stories, and that is all they are, stories.

 

[james2ko]

Oh! I understand now. You simply can't stand the idea to get instructions or the Word of God from a Jew. In that case, the only solution is to read the Tanach yourself. That's where I got that quote from. (Micah 4:2; Isaiah 2:3) I have the same feeling when some one gives me a quote as a reference to what he or she has said. I go straight to the quote and I have it.

Your conclusion further proves my point on your questionable interpretive and observation skills. I said the word of God never originates (has its beginning) from a human. It always originates from God.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Your conclusion further proves my point on your questionable interpretive and observation skills. I said the word of God never originates (has its beginning) from a human. It always originates from God.

The Words of God originate from Him and are communicated to the world through His Prophets.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Your conclusion further proves my point on your questionable interpretive and observation skills. I said the word of God never originates (has its beginning) from a human. It always originates from God.

Yes, I agree with you. The Word of God originates with God and it is communicated to the world through His servants, the Prophets.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Easier? You just made your interpretation even more difficult to accept. The word of the Lord "originates" from God Himself. It never originates from a human(s), which is what you are suggesting.

Most definitely not. Your interpretation requires leaps of logic not supported by the text. Zion, as in Mount Zion, is a place in the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, not Judah, is called the city (ayar) of David. Jerusalem is only one city within the tribe of Judah. Judah is also a tribe within the nation (goy) of the same name (Judah) , consisting of two tribes, one of which David descended..

You are attempting to equate Mount Zion, which is only a place in Jerusalem, with the city of David (Jerusalem), then forcing the appellation of "Judah" for David. Thus jumping several unacceptable logic barriers to arrive at your interpretation.

If we don't go down into details, Zion can be a reference to Jerusalem and both mean Judah aka the New Israel according to Isaiah 48:1.

 

[james2ko]

If we don't go down into details, Zion can be a reference to Jerusalem and both mean Judah aka the New Israel according to Isaiah 48:1.

Jerusalem doesn't always mean Judah. Jerusalem is a city, Judah is not. Neither is Jerusalem a nation (goy), as is Israel. Once again, you are performing logical somersaults in order to justify your no resurrection belief.

 

[james2ko]

Yes, I agree with you. The Word of God originates with God and it is communicated to the world through His servants, the Prophets.

Not only the prophets but His angelic messengers also communicate His word.

 

[George-ananda]

I say yes, because the bible says so. Ecclesiastes 12:7, King James Bible
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

I say Yes because the evidence from the paranormal says so. The Bible got it right, I'd say.