Poll: Do you think we are born with an immortal soul?

[captainbryce]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Gehenna was just symbolic in the text, whatsoever. The connection to the valley of burning may just be that they named this purgatorical afterlife after where they threw their trash to burn, or vice versa, but there is simply no solid concrete reason to assume the Jews did not believe in such a literal place of burning in the hereafter.

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. I don't need evidence to prove a negative. Where is your evidence that there is a literal connection to the valley of Hinnom? Where is your biblical evidence of a purgatory? These things are IDEAS with no biblical support. There is no spiritual afterlife for those who are condemned. There is only death (because death is the wages of sin). That's what the bible says. Those who do not receive eternal life shall perish. That's what it says!

 

[Shermana]

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. I don't need evidence to prove a negative. Where is your evidence that there is a literal connection to the valley of Hinnom? Where is your biblical evidence of a purgatory? These things are IDEAS with no biblical support. There is no spiritual afterlife for those who are condemned. There is only death (because death is the wages of sin). That's what the bible says. Those who do not receive eternal life shall perish. That's what it says!

Not in the Bible, but in the Dead Sea Scrolls, definitely, the place of fiery damnation is a reality for the Qumran essenes or at least the ones that went by the War Scroll. Also, there's no proof that Gen Hinnom was a trash burning valley but was considered the valley where Moloch was worshiped through burning children. We also know that the early Talmud is chock full of references to hellfire as a real place, so at what point did the Jews start believing in a real hellfire? There's little reason to doubt that the NT's acknowledgement that they believed in an actual hell had precedent.

What we do have complete biblical support for is that the Soul lives on after death, such as I showed you with Samuel's soul being called up after the grave, which defacto proves, necessarily, without a shadow of a doubt, that the text implied it was in fact possible to call up souls from the grave.

There's no reason to believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about any reference to hellfire such as in Luke 16:17-31 either. None. There's no reason to assert it as if matter of fact, at all. None. To say that every reference in the NT about hellfire is metaphorical requires some big stretching, and to say that the OT does not talk about the "land of shades" as a real place where real souls go to afterward requires some dubious assertions about the language that cannot be proved. The text likely teaches that souls experience the death of the body, not death of the soul itself, otherwise it would be completely contradicting itself.

And the word is not necessarily "Eternal Life" but "Age long life" and it does not necessarily say that they will perish altogether. By all means, please show me why you think that the Bible says they will "perish" necessarily. Verses please.

 

[captainbryce]

What we do have complete biblical support for is that the Soul lives on after death,

We have the exact opposite (which I pointed out in scriptures that you nor anyone else on here could explain away). The soul does not survive death. This is what the bible has plainly said.

such as I showed you with Samuel's soul being called up after the grave, which defacto proves, necessarily, without a shadow of a doubt, that the text implied it was in fact possible to call up souls from the grave.

Nope. It does no such thing. It was not Samuel's soul.

Blue Letter Bible - Don Stewart FAQs :: Did the Spirit of Samuel Communicate to Saul at En Dor?

There's no reason to believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about any reference to hellfire such as in Luke 16:17-31 either. None.

This is so ridiculous. You do know what a parable is don't you? If not, I suggest you look that up, then get back to us

Suffice it to say, the entire passage is metaphorical because it's not describing a real event! It's allegory used by Jesus to illustrate a point.

There's no reason to assert it as if matter of fact, at all. None. To say that every reference in the NT about hellfire is metaphorical requires some big stretching,

It requires no stretching at all. It is clearly metaphorical and it in fact requires stretching to turn obvious allegorical depictions into literal accounts.

And the word is not necessarily "Eternal Life" but "Age long life" and it does not necessarily say that they will perish altogether.

Case in point! STRETCHING :yes:

By all means, please show me why you think that the Bible says they will "perish" necessarily. Verses please.

Greek Concordance: ???????? (apol?tai) -- 7 Occurrences

 

[Shermana]

We have the exact opposite (which I pointed out in scriptures that you nor anyone else on here could explain away). The soul does not survive death. This is what the bible has plainly said.

The bible does not plainly say that, it says the Soul may die as in experience death in the body. Otherwise you are saying the Bible flat out contradicts itself. Sorry to pop your balloon, but you're asserting controversial translation and interpretation issues as if they are matter of fact in the face of the evidence that contradicts your position. I'm sure no matter how I explained it, you could call victory and say "No one here can explain them away" as if your interpretation is somehow able to disprove the counter views.

Nope. It does no such thing. It was not Samuel's soul.

Blue Letter Bible - Don Stewart FAQs :: Did the Spirit of Samuel Communicate to Saul at En Dor?

Where in the Bible does it say it wasn't Sameul's soul and was really a Demon in disguise when it says "Samuel said"? It doesn't. One of the most pathetic rubbish explanations by those pushing an agenda has been to say it wasn't really Samuel's soul as if the audience was intended to understand this without it being made anywhere clear. This logic that requires twisting the story to get it to say something it didn't at all say whatsoever involves a presumption of a base of interpretation in order to get it to match that confirmation bias. My interpretation involves a plain reading of what the text itself actually says. Yours doesn't. Your logic is that Jewish souls are warned not to consult the dead even though it's not possible, my view is that the text says not to do it because it's possible to do it. Your view requires some convolution. Mine is the plain reading.

This is so ridiculous. You do know what a parable is don't you? If not, I suggest you look that up, then get back to us

What's ridiculous is you assuming that it being a parable somehow renders the aspect of the reality of hellfire to be non-existent, and also do note that all parables are introduced as parables. This one is the exception apparently. By all means, please explain what the point was of describing the gulf that cannot be bridged, and what the use of the imagery of the Rich Man begging Lazarus for a drop of water to cool his tongue would be for.

Suffice it to say, the entire passage is metaphorical because it's not describing a real event! It's allegory used by Jesus to illustrate a point.

Regardless if it is, Jesus is describing the afterlife through it as part of the narrative of the story. Why would he include such in the first place? What does it serve to the moral of the story?

It requires no stretching at all. It is clearly metaphorical and it in fact requires stretching to turn obvious allegorical depictions into literal accounts.

What's stretching is to say that Jesus would use a non-reality of Jewish Cosmology to make a point. Even if he or a Hebrew prophet made an analogy about talking trees, they are still talking about things that exist. In this instance, what do you think the point of the metaphor is for in the first place? Why is he so descriptive in saying that an evil man cannot pass into the Bosom of Abraham?

Case in point! STRETCHING :yes:

Saying that 1 Samuel REALLY meant a demon in disguise is painful stretching.

Greek Concordance: ???????? (apol?tai) -- 7 Occurrences[/QUOTE]

Would you like to try again and not link to the word itself? I'll give you a hint, none of those state that the soul itself is what perishes. Nice try though. No actually that wasn't a nice try at all. Try again.

 

[Shermana]

By the way, did you even read the Blue letter Bible link you provided? Kinda sorta doesn't agree with you, and bolsters my point greatly. Thanks for the link! Next time read your links.

 

[captainbryce]

The bible does not plainly say that, it says the Soul may die as in experience life in the body.

That doesn't even make sense! That is you ADDING to the words of scripture.

:sarcastic

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This requires no further "interpretation" for anyone capable of rational thought.

Otherwise you are saying the Bible flat out contradicts itself.

No, that's what YOU are saying. I'm saying that the bible is completely consistent on the matter. There is no eternal soul except for the one who receives salvation through Christ. That is the consistent theme throughout the New Testament. There is no eternal soul for those who are not saved by faith. There is only death!

Sorry to pop your balloon, but you're asserting controversial translation and interpretation issues as if they are matter of fact in the face of the evidence that contradicts your position.

There is no evidence that contradicts my position. There is only YOUR interpretation, and YOUR allegations of "controversial translation". I'm sorry to pop your balloon but it says what it says!

Where in the Bible does it say it wasn't Sameul's soul and was really a Demon in disguise when it says "Samuel said"? It doesn't.

It doesn't have to. We know it wasn't Samuel soul because the bible already tells us that one cannot commune with the dead.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

Psalm 146:4
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.

One of the most pathetic rubbish explanations by those pushing an agenda

I have no agenda here.

My interpretation involves a plain reading of what the text itself actually says. Yours doesn't.

So you say (as does everyone on here it seems). So far, I've been in heated debates with a Muslim, a Hindu, a so-called Christian, and an Atheist, and they all claim that their interpretation is "correct". What does that tell you?

What's ridiculous is you assuming that it being a parable somehow renders the aspect of the reality of hellfire to be non-existent, and also do note that all parables are introduced as parables. This one is the exception apparently.

Here, let me help you:
Rich man and Lazarus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luke 16:19

You're welcome! :yes:

Would you like to try again and not link to the word itself? I'll give you a hint, none of those state that the soul itself is what perishes. Nice try though. No actually that wasn't a nice try at all. Try again.

No thanks, I think I've made my point already. You asked why I thought the bible says they will "perish" and to show you the verses. I just did! Now you are moving the goal posts again. That being the case, I think we're done here! :yes:

 

[captainbryce]

By the way, did you even read the Blue letter Bible link you provided? Kinda sorta doesn't agree with you, and bolsters my point greatly. Thanks for the link! Next time read your links.

Yes, I did read it. And I chose it purposely because it is neutral. It offers several different interpretation of that scripture (including yours). That interpretation is the only one you choose to give credence to, and I happen to have a different view. You see how easy it is to acknowledge that people can have different interpretations. :yes:

 

[Shermana]

Yes, I did read it. And I chose it purposely because it is neutral. It offers several different interpretation of that scripture (including yours). That interpretation is the only one you choose to give credence to, and I happen to have a different view. You see how easy it is to acknowledge that people can have different interpretations. :yes:

Yes, acknowledging different interpretations is something I wholeheartily agree with. Asserting as matter of fact is where things get sketchy. It's okay if you can thoroughly deconstruct the other interpretations or show that they are more of a stretch than a plausibility, which I think the plain-reading account does. I can appreciate you providing a text for neutrality, but when you used it after asserting your case, it looked like you meant to use it as a link that agrees with you, so thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Shermana]

That doesn't even make sense! That is you ADDING to the words of scripture.
:sarcastic

Wrong, it's interpreting what it says, and it makes complete sense. A soul dying means it experiences death in the body.

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This requires no further "interpretation" for anyone capable of rational thought.

Who CAN. Like I said last time, God is capable of destroying even the Immortal soul. God's Capability of doing so has nothing to do with anything you're saying that he always does so. And oh look, it says he destroys it IN GEN HINNOM. By your logic, the Soul floats around to the valley of Gen Hinnom to be destroyed from there?

No, that's what YOU are saying. I'm saying that the bible is completely consistent on the matter. There is no eternal soul except for the one who receives salvation through Christ. That is the consistent theme throughout the New Testament. There is no eternal soul for those who are not saved by faith. There is only death!

I'm saying you are misinterpreting what the Bible says, and that the Bible is completely consistent that there IS a soul that lives on, and that it's not "eternal" destruction for those who aren't "saved" (and saved by faith alone is a whole controversial Theological debate) but age-long life in heaven or punishing hellfire.

There is no evidence that contradicts my position. There is only YOUR interpretation, and YOUR allegations of "controversial translation". I'm sorry to pop your balloon but it says what it says!

So then you have no evidence for your position either since it's all "interpretation" either way.

It doesn't have to. We know it wasn't Samuel soul because the bible already tells us that one cannot commune with the dead.

How Epicly wrong you are. It doesn't say you cannot commune with them. Why would it warn not to if it was impossible?

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

Psalm 146:4
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.

"They" is their body after "Their" spirit departs. "Their plans come to nothing" is the correct translation there, its not "thoughts" as many presume. Again, you are asserting a particular translation as if it's matter of fact.

I have no agenda here.

I can at least admit my agenda of showing that people who assert the Bible says there's no soul and afterlife are hawking steaming malarkey.

So you say (as does everyone on here it seems). So far, I've been in heated debates with a Muslim, a Hindu, a so-called Christian, and an Atheist, and they all claim that their interpretation is "correct". What does that tell you?

What it tells me is that you are just as guilty. This begets a discussion on how we know our interpretations are more valid than others, and that's not for this thread. Especially with people who think their interpretations are matter of fact in the face of verses that say otherwise.

Here, let me help you:
Rich man and Lazarus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luke 16:19

You're welcome! :yes:

What am I thanking you for? Showing a Wikipedia Link on a controversial passage? Have you read it? Did you think it somehow backs your point?

"There are different views on the historicity and origin of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.[8] The story is unique to Luke and is not thought to come from the hypothetical Q document.[1]"

This one is closest to the right idea, especially in context to the verse it stems from, Luke 16:17.

Drioux, a parable against the Sadducees[edit source | editbeta]
An alternative explanation of the parable is a satirical parable against the Sadducees. One writer to identify the Sadducees as the target was Johann Nepomuk Sepp.[17] The arguments in favour of identification of the Rich Man as the Sadducees are (1) the wearing of purple and fine linen, priestly dress,[18] (2) the reference to "five brothers in my father's house" as an allusion to Caiaphas' father-in-law Annas, and his five sons who also served as high priests according to Josephus,[19] (3) Abraham's statement in the parable that they would not believe even if he raised Lazarus, and then the fulfillment that when Jesus did raise Lazarus of Bethany the Sadducees not only did not believe, but attempted to have Lazarus killed again: "So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well" (John 12:10). This last interpretation had wide circulation in France during the 1860-'90s as a result of having been included in the notes of the pictorial Bible of Abbé Drioux.[20]

No thanks, I think I've made my point already. You asked why I thought the bible says they will "perish" and to show you the verses. I just did! Now you are moving the goal posts again. That being the case, I think we're done here! :yes:[

So asking you to actually provide verses that say the Soul perishes after you merely link to the uses of the verses of which NOT ONE OF THEM AGREE WITH YOUR POINT is moving the goalposts? Got it.

 

[captainbryce]

I can at least admit my agenda of showing that people who assert the Bible says there's no soul and afterlife are hawking steaming malarkey.

Just out of curiosity (cause I have to go to bed soon), what do you think my "agenda" is exactly?

 

[Shermana]

Just out of curiosity (cause I have to go to bed soon), what do you think my "agenda" is exactly?

To defeat what you consider a wrong belief. Just like mine. The "agenda" I was referring to earlier was not yours but those who push things like the "Samuel's soul was actually a demon in disguise even though the text doesn't say this whatsoever". These are people who convolute wacky interpretations that go plain beyond the plain reading of the text for the sake of a Theology that doesn't involve living souls. It's a popular idea in the modern times but it's based on a dogged refusal

 

[danieldemol]

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This requires no further "interpretation" for anyone capable of rational thought.

This is a chance to test your hypothesis that the soul is conciousness.

Obviously a person can kill conciousness by murdering the body (running with your assumption that there is no independant soul which can maintain conciousness after the death of the body) . Since the scripture clearly states that people cannot kill the soul it becomes self evident that the soul is not conciousness.

 

[Shermana]

This is a chance to test your hypothesis that the soul is conciousness.

Obviously a person can kill conciousness by murdering the body (running with your assumption that there is no independant soul which can maintain conciousness after the death of the body) . Since the scripture clearly states that people cannot kill the soul it becomes self evident that the soul is not conciousness.

Also, why would David talk to his soul like its an actual part of him that is "within"? One can call it poetic but the language seems to indicate he's being quite literal, that he's talking to his soul. If he's talking to his soul, then his soul is more than just a description of his consciousness. Perhaps the BASIS of consciousness, but not the consciousness itself.

Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Also, why would David talk to his soul like its an actual part of him that is "within"? One can call it poetic but the language seems to indicate he's being quite literal, that he's talking to his soul. If he's talking to his soul, then his soul is more than just a description of his consciousness. Perhaps the BASIS of consciousness, but not the consciousness itself.

Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.

It seems more like an internal dialogue. In the light of what we know today this would be akin to talking to yourself. In the context of at the time he was writing it, I think there is a chance that he was talking about more than just his consciousness.

 

[Thief]

It seems more like an internal dialogue. In the light of what we know today this would be akin to talking to yourself. In the context of at the time he was writing it, I think there is a chance that he was talking about more than just his consciousness.

So close...and yet so far.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So close...and yet so far.

I would not presume to know the hebrew language nor understand it better than those who speak it. SO I say I think in realization of that fact, unlike others.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There could be some record of us, but I cannot see us as being important enough to matter in all of eternity. It seems very long and very large, and the things we do don't seem to affect it.

 

[Thief]

There could be some record of us, but I cannot see us as being important enough to matter in all of eternity. It seems very long and very large, and the things we do don't seem to affect it.

But what if you are deemed worthy to continue?

What reality shall you have?

How 'big' do your thoughts have to be.....that you are an influence?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Religious debates are pointless because nobody ever wins.

Well, if you leave the debate while I have shown the Problems with your interpretations, then that is your loss. Actually it is not your personal loss, but it is a loss of an old belief, that has little to do with the original teachings of Christ.

Right! :sarcastic Okay, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. It doesn't matter what the New Testament says to you because you don't follow it. You'll always come up with some excuse to get around it or some reason why you should interpret it differently from what it says.

Well, when you used a Translation that has added a word that does not exist in the original Greek, should I not point it out?
It is obvious the verse you quoted does not make your point.

You've choose to reject the teachings of Christ, so your criticism of it is pointless. You ask me to provide scripture, but that is pointless because you will always make it what YOU want it to mean.

That's a false accusation. I completely believe in Christ and Bible.
What I don't agree is the misinterpretations that I have pointed out.

You will always twist it so that it coincides with your false, anti-Christian religion and your fake God. It doesn't matter what I say or what evidence I provide, you will never see it the way that I do because you have been blinded by false prophets. So I'm essentially wasting my time by arguing with you. I knew better than to argue religion with someone of a different faith and I don't know how I got drawn into this in the first place because this is generally something I avoid doing.

Well, you are free to believe or say what you want.

Moreover had you believed in Christ, you would have also recognized Baha'u'llah as His return. Even As Baha'u'llah said:

"Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity." Tablet of Ahmad

Instead, I'll pray for you!

Thank you. You also pray for yourself that God may guide you.

Here is one prayer for you:

"O God, guide me, protect me, make of me a shining lamp and a brilliant star. Thou art the Mighty and the Powerful." - Abdulbaha




Now you are all set

 

[Katzpur]

Are you finished?

As far as talking to you is concerned, yes.