Here's a good question for you!

[GodB4Us]

If man was created, mortal which means he would eventually die then why put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he was going to die anyway?

Man was not created to die. Sin came and death came by it.

You'll have to ask God for that answer.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[GodB4Us]

You demonstrate that you don't know how to study Scripture. Please educate yourself on Biblical principles of interpretation, one of the primary principles is the Topical Principle, along with the Progressive Revelation Principle. Putting these into action, we collect all of the passages that have to do with the subject matter (in this case the spirit of man) and take them all together - that is the ONLY way to come to the truth of what Scripture teaches on any subject, and by failing to do that, we (you) pervert the Scriptures and key doctrines of Christianity.

For example, there are over 300 passages that address eternal life in the Bible; taking only three of them (you stake your theory on only one passage...hmmm...) is about as smart as taking three pieces of a 300 piece jig-saw puzzle, laying them on the table, and exclaiming, "What a beautiful picture!!!" I have not worked a detailed study on the spirit of man, so I do not know exactly how many passages in Scripture address the subject...but what I do know from what I know of Scripture, you are dead wrong in your presupposition on the matter.

..

Since it is on God to cause the increase, intellectual studying will not benefit unless one is relying on the Lord for wisdom in understanding His words. So prayer is needed not just for the other, but for ourselves as well in any discussion.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[PAH]

The Tree of Life (eternal) is guarded by a flaming sword, which symbolizes Truth. Only the True can access the Tree of Life. Truth, the Greater Reality, is everlasting. Everything else is untrue and unreal to the True.

 

[Butch5]

You demonstrate that you don't know how to study Scripture. Please educate yourself on Biblical principles of interpretation, one of the primary principles is the Topical Principle, along with the Progressive Revelation Principle. Putting these into action, we collect all of the passages that have to do with the subject matter (in this case the spirit of man) and take them all together - that is the ONLY way to come to the truth of what Scripture teaches on any subject, and by failing to do that, we (you) pervert the Scriptures and key doctrines of Christianity.

For example, there are over 300 passages that address eternal life in the Bible; taking only three of them (you stake your theory on only one passage...hmmm...) is about as smart as taking three pieces of a 300 piece jig-saw puzzle, laying them on the table, and exclaiming, "What a beautiful picture!!!" I have not worked a detailed study on the spirit of man, so I do not know exactly how many passages in Scripture address the subject...but what I do know from what I know of Scripture, you are dead wrong in your presupposition on the matter.

..

You should probably inquire and not assume what someone does or does not know before making accusations. But, just so we're on the same page I use a method of hermeneutics called the Grammatical Historical method. So, I do understand how to interpret Scripture. I could flip the script on you, but that wouldn't be very Christian like. You sit here an tell me I'm dead wrong in my presupposition when you admit that you haven't done a word study on the spirit of man. Well, I have. I]ve done a word study on the word spirit and it's uses through the Scriptures. If you set aside your presupposition that man is a spirit and do an honest study of the word through Scripture you'll find that man is not a spirit. To begin, a study of what a man is, is most appropriate. We find the creation of man in Gen 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

So, as a starting point, the first mention of the creation of man, we find that man is flesh created from the dust. We see that God breathed something of Himself in to the man, the breath or spirit of life. Then we see that those two combined to form a living soul. So, in this first mention of the creation of man and we see that the spirit or breath in him is something of God, it is not man. If you trace this through Scripture you won't find any other spirit or breath in man except the Holy Breath or Spirit which is also something of God, and not man, or demons, which are figuratively called breaths or spirits.

As we continue to study the words translated spirit through the Scriptures we find that the words wind or breath fit the passages. We find that in some places the words are used figuratively, such as when they are used of angels or demons, and in some places they are used literally. What we don't find is a definition of the words that means a disembodied conscious being. that is a figure of speech.
The problem is that the translators have taken it upon themselves to decide what is and is not a figure of speech and as such have cemented their theological biases into the text. The reader would be much better served if the translators would "ALWAYS" translate these words as wind or breath and let the reader decide if it's literal or a figure of speech. By translating these words to the word spirit they are guiding the reader to understand these words as a disembodied conscious being rather than wind or breath. When the original readers read these texts they saw wind or breath in the text, not a disembodied conscious being.

So, before you accuse me of not knowing how to interpret Scripture, you should check and see if I actually don't know how to.
For someone who claims to know how to study Scripture I'm kind of surprise that you believe man is a spirit. You tell me I'm dead wrong in my presupposition when you haven't even validated yours. You claim I'm dead wrong yet you admit you haven't even done a word study on the spirit of man. I have. Maybe before telling others they are wrong you should validate your own beliefs. Maybe you should put in the work to make sure you're correct before telling others they're wrong.

 

[Butch5]

Actually, what you have given is an assumption, and that not only based upon no Scripture but also in direct opposition to what Scripture clearly teaches.

It is also an assumption on your part (and not substantiated by Scripture anywhere) that God continuously gives you life. You were given life the moment your daddy's ***** hit your momma's egg and you were conceived. At some point after that, God sent (or caused to happen) a spirit into that forming infant. From that point forward, you are alive because YOU eat and drink and YOU keep breathing...and because God has not yet seen fit to end your physical life. You assume much into the contexts and texts with no validation whatsoever.

Plus, the Greek verb in the present tense speaks of the present when the text was written (unless the context specifically stretches its meaning), the Greek present tense does NOT mean continuous action...that is the great mistake of many a calvinist in a number of their false doctrines.

..

I don't make assumptions. For someone who claims to know how to study scripture you surprise. You may know how to study Scripture, but, I'm beginning to wonder if you do study.

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; (1 Tim. 6:13 KJV)

11 For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
12 Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
13 Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. (Job 34:11-15 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

While I understand your point, we must also understand that simply giving breath to a dead body will not revive it. While what you say is true about the words for spirit, we also understand that there are other words that have been used in Scripture and given a purely spiritual meaning to. Both נפח and πνεῦμα are used in this very same way. When we assign a "standard" definition to the word when it is clear that it means spirit, then we pervert the meaning of the word in the text, and thus, pervert the text. As an example, when the Scriptures say that an "unclean spirit" possessed someone or was cast out, are you going to suggest (in great error) that the word pneuma in such a text actually means "unclean breath?" If you would, then you would be cutting your nose off despite your face (or shooting yourself in the foot, which ever you prefer).

Yes, I would suggest that it's an "unclean breath". Then I would also know that it is being used figuratively and not literally. So, then I would ask myself how are the qualities of wind or breath applied to this unclean being. The Scriptures say, God is wind or breath. Obviously God is not a current of air, so we know this is a figure of speech. So we ask ourselves what qualities of wind or breath are being applied to God in this context. What I wouldn't do, is impose an English definition to a Greek or Hebrew word that has no such definition.

Again, while I understand what you are saying, you are not being straight with the texts. Your hand is part of your body, its not that you "possess" it...it is part of you. If I chop off your hand, again, it is not used in the sense of possession, but in the sense of it is part of you...part of your body. By rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture that human beings are flesh and spirit, you pervert numerous passages and not just one doctrine of Scripture.

I am being straight with the text. "Your" denotes possession or ownership, not person. If I cutoff my hand is that hand me? No. Do I cease to exist? No. The hand is a part of me, but it is not me. If it is cut off it will die, I will live. The immortal soul idea says that man is a spirit that lives on after the body dies. That means the body is the hand in our example. The hand is not me. In the doctrine the body is not the person, the spirit or breath is. So, when the Scriptures say (his, her, our, your, my) spirit they show unequivocally that the Spirit is NOT the person, but rather something belonging to the person, or as you suggest a part of the person.

Now, I will agree that the spirit is a part of man, but it is not who the man is. I will also submit that the spirit that is part of man, is the spirit of God, it is not man. It is the breath of life that we see that God breathed into Adam. Scripture tells us that the breath of life is in all living things.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. (Gen. 6:17 KJV)

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. (Gen. 7:15-23 KJV)

Notice that flesh is intrinsically tied with the spirit of life. Also notice that it is in animals as well as man. This is the spirit that is in man. It is something of God, it is not man.

Do you realize that you are making the same argument that heretic Jehovah's Witnesses use in their false doctrines, which has been condemned for the last 2000 years as just that...false doctrine? I understood that in order to be part of this forum, one had to uphold the essential doctrines of the Christian faith...but what you are claiming is not one of them.

Do you realize that "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy? The source of a doctrine is irrelevant to its validity. A doctrine either stands or falls on its own merits.

Sorry, but what you are saying is only half truths. Here...

1 Samuel 28:7-15
7 Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a medium at En-dor."
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you."
9 The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?"
10 But Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing."
11 Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul."
13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth."
14 He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do."

I've also done a deep study of this passage. Did Samuel really appear? Let's see, Saul went to a demon possessed woman to seek an answer from God. God said that He would no longer answer Saul. So, how was Saul going to get an answer from Samuel? Saul never saw Samuel, he perceived that it was Samuel based on what the woman saw. The woman said that she saw gods, not spirits. The word spirit is not used in this passage so it really doesn't prove you point. But that we know it was not the spirit of Samuel is found in 1 Chronicles 10

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; (1 Chr. 10:13 KJV)

Saul died for seeking council of a demon.

Samuel's body was dead, but since human beings are spirits temporarily dwelling within fleshly bodies, Samuel himself did not die. He was a spirit...now, unless you are going to go the way of the JW on this, your point is made completely useless and moot, because your point is in error.

Human beings are flesh and spirit together, to deny that is to make yourself a heretic and pervert the truth of Scripture.

..

Ad Hominems are also logical fallacies. If your doctrine is valid it should stand on its own. You should have no reason to resort to fallacies. As I pointed out above, the word spirit does not appear in the text of that passage so it doesn't prove your point. Also, the woman saw gods, not spirits. 1 Chron 10 tells us that Saul inquired of a demon. Do you really believe that Samuel, a prophet of God, would reply to Saul, through a demon possessed woman? Also, how would he get a reply when God said He was no longer answering Saul.

You may want to reconsider your presupposition.

 

[Butch5]

The text clearly states that God made man in His "image" (head, two arms and hands, two legs and feet, and torso) and in His "likeness" (the spiritual aspects of God - righteous, holy, and spirit). Animals do not have spirits, yet they breathe...another hole in your theory.

..

You talk about assumptions. We're not told in Scripture what being made in the image of God means. And, actually, animals do have spirits as I pointed out in a previous post.

 

[Butch5]

As the passage in I Samuel that I gave you clearly demonstrates, while the "breath returns to God" may well speak of actual breath, it does not imply that every use of the word "breath" means the same thing...you are breaking several principles of Biblical interpretation, none of the least is the Bias Principle as well as ignoring the Contradiction Principle.

The spirits of the righteous made perfect does NOT speak of breath...it speaks of one's spirit. Here...try and explain this away...

Revelation 6:9-11
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.
10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

The soul and spirit are the same thing in Scripture (most of the time)...these were NOT mists floating around in heavenly space, and breaths cannot speak as these do, nor can a mist wear a white robe (or any robe for that matter). As Jesus said to the pharisees, you are wrong because you don't know God or the Scriptures.

..

Again, you speak of hermeneutics, yet it seems you don't understand them very well. As I pointed out, the passage from Samuel does not prove your point. It doesn't even use the word in question, spirit. Talk about hermeneutics? Now here in this passage your conflating soul and spirit. Come on, where are the hermeneutics? I have also done a deep study of this passage. I've also done an extensive word study of the word soul through the Scriptures, and I can assure you that soul and spirit are not the same thing. As was saw in Gen 2:7, the spirit is a part of the Soul along with the body. That is it's concrete meaning. The word soul is also used abstractly in Scripture of life itself.

Isaiah says that Christ gave His soul for sins. What did He give? His life, HIs body, He died physically for sin.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53:10-12 KJV)

A soul can die. A breath cannot. it isn't a living being.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezek. 18:4 KJV)

The soul is in the blood.

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Lev. 17:11 KJV)

Both bolded words are Nephesh, soul. Even the translators see that soul is life. Spirit is wind or breath, soul is life or a living being.
A soul eats and drinks.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? (Matt. 6:25 KJV)

The word Life is Psuche, soul. spirit or breath/wind does not eat and drink. Soul and spirit are not interchangeable they are two different things. They are related in that they pertain to life but they are not the same thing.

Regarding the passage, this is a passage from a book full of symbolism. This book portrays Jesus as a lamb having been slain having 7 eyes. It also portrays Jesus as a man. It portrays death and Hades as riding horses. It portrays the city of Babylon as a prostitute. So, if you want to use this passage to prove your point you'll need to explain how it's literal and not symbolic. Also, why are they under the alter? Also, as we saw from Gen 2 and the examples above, a soul requires a body. So, if these under the alter have bodies, this passage doesn't prove your point as it isn't spirits under the alter, but souls. If the passage is using soul abstractly of life itself, what is under the alter, because we saw that a living soul required a body. One more point, what John was seeing was the future. We don't know how far into the future it was. Since it could be the very distant future we can't use the passage to claim that's what happens today. Also, since it is a vision of the future, how do you know that those souls have not already been resurrected at that point?

Since soul and spirit are two different words with two different meanings, again, this passage does not support your claim that man is a spirit.

If you'd like we can go over, Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison, the Transfiguration, the Thief on the Cross, Forever and ever in Rev 20, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God is the God of the living. I've studied all of the passages that people use to promote this doctrine that man is a spirit and I can show the error in understanding in each of these passages. Man is not a spirit. There is nothing in the Scripture that says he is. The idea is simply the influence of Greek Philosophy on the New Testament. If you apply those principles of hermeneutics without the presupposition that man is a spirit, you'll come to a very different conclusion.

 

[Butch5]

@Butch5

Probably best to clarify that man has a spirit rather than man is a spirit. There will be a celestial body for those worthy of the firstfruits of the resurrection.

Thanks. I have clarified that is a post this morning.

 

[Shaolin]

Since it is on God to cause the increase, intellectual studying will not benefit unless one is relying on the Lord for wisdom in understanding His words. So prayer is needed not just for the other, but for ourselves as well in any discussion.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Actually, we are commanded to study God's Word intelligently, that is one reason that God gave you a brain. Paul says to study to show that you are approved of God, in order to be able to rightly interpret His Word. Prayer and the Holy Spirit all work together for the person who is being a truth seeker.

..

 

[Shaolin]

You should probably inquire and not assume what someone does or does not know before making accusations. But, just so we're on the same page I use a method of hermeneutics called the Grammatical Historical method.

I do believe that I said a COMPLETE Biblical hermeneutic...the Grammatical Historical "method" as you call it, is only one out of 27...so if that is the ONLY one that you use, its no wonder that you have this wrong.

So, I do understand how to interpret Scripture.

Not if you are only using one out of twenty-seven principles...

I could flip the script on you, but that wouldn't be very Christian like.

Actually, that is false. If you honestly care about someone's eternal destiny, then it is very Christian like to ensure that the person you are talking to knows what they are doing, and educate them if they do not.

You sit here an tell me I'm dead wrong in my presupposition when you admit that you haven't done a word study on the spirit of man.

No...read what I said again. I said that I have not done a detailed study...there is a difference. And, BTW, you demonstrate in your posts that YOU have not done one either...unless you just conveniently ignore those passages that show your interpretation to be in error. That is understandable...the flesh doesn't like to be told its wrong.

Well, I have. I]ve done a word study on the word spirit and it's uses through the Scriptures.

Then that answers the question on the cherry picking that you have done in order to only support the false interpretation you came up with.

If you set aside your presupposition that man is a spirit and do an honest study of the word through Scripture you'll find that man is not a spirit.

I could set aside what I know, except that what I know on this subject is what the Scriptures clearly teach. You ignore or try in vain to explain away what the fullness of the Scriptures teach...because you have not done what you are telling me to do. Sorry, but the shoe is on your foot, not mine.

To begin, a study of what a man is, is most appropriate. We find the creation of man in Gen 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

So, as a starting point, the first mention of the creation of man, we find that man is flesh created from the dust. We see that God breathed something of Himself in to the man, the breath or spirit of life. Then we see that those two combined to form a living soul. So, in this first mention of the creation of man and we see that the spirit or breath in him is something of God, it is not man. If you trace this through Scripture you won't find any other spirit or breath in man except the Holy Breath or Spirit which is also something of God, and not man, or demons, which are figuratively called breaths or spirits.

Therefore, you testify against yourself that you will call a demon an unclean spirit from the word for "breath" but then renig on the fact that the same word used when it comes to man is only a breath instead of spirit. You show yourself to be a bias defender, not a truth seeker.

..

 

[Shaolin]

I don't make assumptions. For someone who claims to know how to study scripture you surprise. You may know how to study Scripture, but, I'm beginning to wonder if you do study.

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; (1 Tim. 6:13 KJV)

11 For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
12 Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
13 Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. (Job 34:11-15 KJV)

I have already called you out on your weak hermeneutical taxing, so I won't go over it again.

Nice try, but your passages do not prove what you claim...

..

 

[Shaolin]

Yes, I would suggest that it's an "unclean breath".

And that is why you fail.

Then I would also know that it is being used figuratively and not literally.

The word breath is used figuratively for spirit...but you reject that because it goes against your false bias.

So, then I would ask myself how are the qualities of wind or breath applied to this unclean being. The Scriptures say, God is wind or breath. Obviously God is not a current of air, so we know this is a figure of speech. So we ask ourselves what qualities of wind or breath are being applied to God in this context. What I wouldn't do, is impose an English definition to a Greek or Hebrew word that has no such definition.

Yes...the word for breath is used figuratively for spirit when addressing God...and also when addressing human beings, which I demonstrated in other passages that I have yet to see your rebuttal on, so I will wait til we get there...

I am being straight with the text. "Your" denotes possession or ownership, not person. If I cutoff my hand is that hand me? No. Do I cease to exist? No. The hand is a part of me, but it is not me. If it is cut off it will die, I will live. The immortal soul idea says that man is a spirit that lives on after the body dies. That means the body is the hand in our example. The hand is not me. In the doctrine the body is not the person, the spirit or breath is. So, when the Scriptures say (his, her, our, your, my) spirit they show unequivocally that the Spirit is NOT the person, but rather something belonging to the person, or as you suggest a part of the person.

Yes, that is a logical conclusion if you are only going by one passage, but again (since you don't know how to study Scripture accurately) when we take all of the passages together that have to do with this topic, we observe in Scripture that we are spirits dwelling within mortal bodies. To deny that is, well...we'll save that for later.

Now, I will agree that the spirit is a part of man, but it is not who the man is. I will also submit that the spirit that is part of man, is the spirit of God, it is not man. It is the breath of life that we see that God breathed into Adam. Scripture tells us that the breath of life is in all living things.

Your submission is duly noted and rejected based entirely upon Scripture. The sinner does not have any part of God dwelling within him...contrary to your earlier comment about not assuming things, you are caught red handed in an unwarranted and illegitimate assumption. Way to go...

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. (Gen. 6:17 KJV)

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. (Gen. 7:15-23 KJV)

Yes, indeed...and you are misinterpreting the use of the words in order to fit your presupposition that is based upon another false interpretation solely for your bias. Sometimes the breath speaks of actual breath - yet here, as in other places, the word breath is used metaphorically for "life" itself, and does not mean spirit. While in the passages where it does mean spirit, not life or breath, you...because your bias demands it...misinterpret them to mean simply breath.

Notice that flesh is intrinsically tied with the spirit of life. Also notice that it is in animals as well as man. This is the spirit that is in man. It is something of God, it is not man.

Like a hot dog...a little truth wrapped up in deception. The spirit in man comes from God, nothing in Scripture says that it is part of God. And...which is still coming, I wait to see what you do with the other passages that I gave that destroys your supposition.

Do you realize that "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy? The source of a doctrine is irrelevant to its validity. A doctrine either stands or falls on its own merits.

First...I doubt that you actually know what a logical fallacy is, and use it whenever you are cornered like so many others do.
Second, the source of a doctrine is everything...you again demonstrate that you don't know what you are doing, but really think that you do. I would continue on that point, but it is too laborious and you wouldn't listen anyway.

I've also done a deep study of this passage. Did Samuel really appear? Let's see, Saul went to a demon possessed woman to seek an answer from God. God said that He would no longer answer Saul. So, how was Saul going to get an answer from Samuel? Saul never saw Samuel, he perceived that it was Samuel based on what the woman saw. The woman said that she saw gods, not spirits. The word spirit is not used in this passage so it really doesn't prove you point. But that we know it was not the spirit of Samuel is found in 1 Chronicles 10

Yep, just as I stated above...JW nonsense. I thought you might go there, but your point is lost as you have lost the discussion. Verse 12 the woman cries out...practically every commentator and theologian worth his salt (not liberal moron theologians) identify her scream because she was expecting to see a demonic spirit that normally appears as the person she is supposed to be calling up, in case you don't know it, that is what Scripture calls a familiar spirit. She cried out because instead of her demon cohort, Samuel actually appeared.

Not too mention that the Scripture says that it was Samuel, not a familiar spirit...of course, you can continue to call God a liar who had the Spirit write this through the person who wrote it, but I would not recommend that. If Scripture says that it was Samuel who came up and spoke to Saul, then it was Samuel who came up and spoke to Saul. You saying that the clear text means something different just because your biased theology tells you to, is...again...calling God a liar. Nice try, but you fail again.

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; (1 Chr. 10:13 KJV)

Saul died for seeking council of a demon.

Yes, he went to inquire from a medium, but he didn't believe it was a demon that he would have spoken to. He believed that it would have been Samuel...besides that, your point is completely negated, again, by the fact that Scripture says it was Samuel who came up. Your presupposition is adequately destroyed by this singular passage...but you continue to believe your false theory simply because you don't want people to see that you are wrong. That is not a very healthy or spiritually mature thing to do, butch.

Ad Hominems are also logical fallacies.

I gave no ad hominems...playing underhandedly because you cannot win the argument is not becoming, butch. You should calm down...

If your doctrine is valid it should stand on its own.

Exactly what do you mean by "should stand on its own?" The Scripture speaks very clearly...Samuel came up from the abode of the dead. Samuel...not "his spirit" but he himself, precisely because human beings are spirits temporarily dwelling within physical mortal bodies. The fact that you continue to argue against that CLEAR Biblical teaching, says much about you...

You should have no reason to resort to fallacies.

Playing underhandedly again...that says much about you, too. I made no fallacy...the only one in this conversation that has, is yourself. But nice try...people who don't like to lose arguments often act in the same way, but it does not work.

As I pointed out above, the word spirit does not appear in the text of that passage so it doesn't prove your point.

Now you are being purposely childish. Anyone with a working brain can read the text, even though the word spirit does not appear in the text (and...guess what...it doesn't have to - unless you are playing childish games because you don't want to lose). Samuel was dead...yet God allowed him to be brought up for purposes of His own design, and it was (doh!) Samuel the spirit, not Samuel the dead body decomposing in the grave. Again, this singular passage demonstrates that your claim is in error, and another fallacy that you keep clinging to.

Also, the woman saw gods, not spirits. 1 Chron 10 tells us that Saul inquired of a demon. Do you really believe that Samuel, a prophet of God, would reply to Saul, through a demon possessed woman? Also, how would he get a reply when God said He was no longer answering Saul.

First, when the woman said she saw gods, we know that she did not see gods because there is only one...so once again, you demonstrate that you will reach out for nonsense in order to make yourself seem like you know what you are talking about. Second, 1 Chr. 10 does not say that he inquired of a demon, it says that he inquired of a medium...in case your faulty education doesn't tell you this, a medium is a person, not a demon. Third, Scripture does not lie, and it says that Samuel came up...therefore, for anyone seeking the truth on the subject, Samuel came up, not a demon. You play fast and loose with Scripture in order to protect your bias, and that will bite you in the butt one day. Fourth, God did not answer Saul...Samuel did. Every rebuttal of yours has been thoroughly put in the trash can.

You may want to reconsider your presupposition.

The only one with a presupposition here, is you. I go by the facts of Scripture fully and completely detailed, not presuppositions like you do.

..

 

[Shaolin]

You talk about assumptions. We're not told in Scripture what being made in the image of God means. And, actually, animals do have spirits as I pointed out in a previous post.

I made no assumptions. Apparently you need to go do some more homework...but use a COMPLETE Biblical hermeneutic, otherwise you will screw that study up, too.

And, animals do not have spirits, they only have breath. That is, again, where you fail to make Biblical differentiations in the meanings of words, by your own choice in order to defend your false bias. Human beings have spirits, it is part of what makes a human being a human being...animals do not have spirits, animals do not go to hell or heaven, and they would if they had immortal spirits.

Do you read the Urantia book? A lot of the nonsense you come back with is tauted in that new age nonsense...

..

 

[Shaolin]

Again, you speak of hermeneutics, yet it seems you don't understand them very well.

Again, if that one single principle is all that you use, butch, it is YOU who doesn't understand hermeneutics very well. Stop trying to call the kettle black...

As I pointed out, the passage from Samuel does not prove your point.

Ah, but it does to anyone not brainwashed by nonsense. Everyone else here can see that but you.

It doesn't even use the word in question, spirit.

Again, childish nonsense reasoning. There are passages that speak of things and they never use the word that they are speaking about, covenant is one of them. If you are going to continue acting like that, and using fallacious nonsense like this in order to try to prove that you are right, then you are only going to hurt yourself.

Talk about hermeneutics? Now here in this passage your conflating soul and spirit. Come on, where are the hermeneutics? I have also done a deep study of this passage. I've also done an extensive word study of the word soul through the Scriptures, and I can assure you that soul and spirit are not the same thing. As was saw in Gen 2:7, the spirit is a part of the Soul along with the body. That is it's concrete meaning. The word soul is also used abstractly in Scripture of life itself.

Once again you demonstrate a willfull ignorance of definitions that you don't like, because they show that what you cling to is error. The word soul also means individual...would you like me to embarrass you again and provide the passages where the word soul means individuals? Hint...this is one of them. Yes, the soul is part of the spirit, and that in and of itself puts your claim on its butt...but you refuse to see it.

Isaiah says that Christ gave His soul for sins. What did He give? His life, HIs body, He died physically for sin.

Yes, but that does not prove your point. Again, I can provide numerous texts that use the word soul for the individual person...physical body or disembodied human spirit. You lose again...

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53:10-12 KJV)

A soul can die. A breath cannot. it isn't a living being.

Yes...and as long as you continue to interpret breath the wrong way just to justify (in your own mind) your false theology, then you will never be able to come to the truth of the Scriptures.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezek. 18:4 KJV)

Yes...the soul shall die spiritually, meaning that it will be cast into the lake of fire on judgment day...

Revelation 20:13-15
13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Wow...wait! Did the Holy Spirit through John just say that "anyone's name"!!! Who stands before God on judgment day, butch...you in your flesh, or you as your spirit? I won't bother waiting for your answer, because you will try to explain away the clear meaning of the text...

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The cowardly...liars...etc will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death - why are the spirits of people cast into the lake of fire? Because spirit cannot be destroyed, it has to be dealt with another way. When Scripture talks about a soul dying, it is either speaking of the physical person's death, or being cast into the Lake of Fire, called "the second death" for a reason. If you end up there, it will be YOU...who screwed up in this life in your physical body, because you are a physical body and spirit, not just a breath like the seducing spirits messing with you tell you.

The soul is in the blood.

Well, the soul is not in the blood, it is part of the spirit man...but you keep believing that heretical JW nonsense and see where it gets you. I guarantee that you will not like it.

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Lev. 17:11 KJV)

Both bolded words are Nephesh, soul. Even the translators see that soul is life. Spirit is wind or breath, soul is life or a living being.
A soul eats and drinks.

Again...let me educate you a little (if it will do any good). Lets take the word charis...it has 16 different possible meanings in Greek depending upon how it is utilized in a sentence and context. Using charis as an example here of what you are trying to do, according to you we should only use one of those meanings every time we find the word charis. That is not only idiotic (and for clarification, I am not calling you an idiot), it leads to false doctrine and breaks a number of principles of Biblical interpretation.

If you cannot utilize your grammatical principle that you claim to use, in a legitimate way, then you shoot yourself in the foot like you just have (and have at least two other times in this discussion). A word has any number of possible meanings in a language, and that word gets its definition from the context and sentence in which it is utilized...you do not get to pick and choose the meaning just because it suits your false bias. That is about as illegitimate as what evolutionists do with the facts of nature in order to make you believe in evolution nonsense.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? (Matt. 6:25 KJV)

The word Life is Psuche, soul. spirit or breath/wind does not eat and drink. Soul and spirit are not interchangeable they are two different things. They are related in that they pertain to life but they are not the same thing.

You keep telling yourself that, but its sheer nonsense. Just like the words 'salvation' and 'eternal life' are used as metonyms for one another, so, too, the words soul and spirit. Again, it all depends upon how it is used in a sentence and context...which you ignore (so far)...the word soul is used 93 times in the NT alone, and out of those 93 times it has various meanings such as soul, spirit, flesh, heart, seat of the emotions, individual person...here, educate yourself:

ψυχή
psuchḗ; gen. psuchḗs, fem. noun from psúchō (G5594), to breathe, blow. Soul, that immaterial part of man held in common with animals. One's understanding of this word's relationship to related terms is contingent upon his position regarding biblical anthropology. Dichotomists view man as consisting of two parts (or substances), material and immaterial, with spirit and soul denoting the immaterial and bearing only a functional and not a metaphysical difference. Trichotomists also view man as consisting of two parts (or substances), but with spirit and soul representing in some contexts a real subdivision of the immaterial. This latter view is here adopted. Accordingly, psuchḗ is contrasted to sṓma (G4983), body, and pneúma (G4151), spirit (1Th_5:23). The psuchḗ, no less than the sárx (G4561), flesh, belongs to the lower region of man's being. Sometimes psuchḗ stands for the immaterial part of man made up of the soul (psuchḗ in the restrictive sense of the life element), and the spirit pneúma. However, animals are not said to possess a spirit; this is only in man, giving him the ability to communicate with God. Also breath (Sept.: Gen_1:30; Job_41:12), and in the NT, usually meaning the vital breath, the life element through which the body lives and feels, the principle of life manifested in the breath.
(I) The soul as the vital principle, the animating element in men and animals.
(A) Generally (Luk_12:20; Act_20:10; Sept.: Gen_35:18; 1Ki_17:21). Of beasts (Rev_8:9).
(B) Metonymically, for life itself (Mat_6:25; Mat_20:28; Mar_3:4; Mar_10:45; Luk_6:9; Luk_12:22-23; Luk_14:26; Luk_21:19; Act_15:26; Act_20:24; Act_27:10, Act_27:22; Rom_16:4; Php_2:30; 1Th_2:8; Rev_12:11). To lay down one's life (Joh_10:11, Joh_10:15, Joh_10:17; Joh_13:37-38; Joh_15:13; 1Jn_3:16). To seek one's life (Mat_2:20; Rom_11:3; Sept.: Exo_4:19). Including the idea of life or the spirit, both natural and eternal (Mat_16:26; Mar_8:36-37 [cf. Luk_9:25]). In antithetic declarations of the Lord Jesus, psuchḗ refers not only to natural life, but also to life as continued beyond the grave (Mat_10:39; Mat_16:25; Mar_8:35; Luk_9:24; Luk_17:33; Joh_12:25). Generally, the soul of man, his spiritual and immortal nature with its higher and lower powers, its rational and natural faculties (Mat_10:28; 2Co_1:23; Heb_6:19; Heb_10:39; Heb_13:17; Jas_1:21; Jas_5:20; 1Pe_1:9; 1Pe_2:11, 1Pe_2:25; 1Pe_4:19). Generally the soul (1Co_15:45, a living soul in allusion to Gen_2:7; Rev_16:3; Sept.: Gen_1:24; Gen_2:19; Gen_9:10, Gen_9:12, Gen_9:15).
(C) Of a departed soul, separate from the body; spoken in Greek mythology of the ghosts inhabiting Hades (Act_2:27, Act_2:31, quoted from Psa_16:10; Rev_6:9; Rev_20:4).
(II) Specifically the soul as the sentient principle, the seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites, passions, the lower aspect of one's nature. Distinguished in Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy from the higher rational nature, expressed by noús (G3563), mind, and pneúma (G4151), spirit belonging to man only. This distinction is also followed by the Sept. and sometimes in the NT (cf. pneúma [G4151], spirit, II, B). In 1Th_5:23 the whole man is indicated as consisting of spirit, soul, and body; soul and spirit, the immaterial part of man upon which the word of God is operative (Heb_4:12); "my soul . . . and my spirit," the immaterial part of personality with which Mary could magnify the Lord (Luk_1:46-47). Distinguished from diánoia (G1271), understanding or mind, because soul is related to the affections (Mat_22:37; Mar_12:30; Luk_10:27). From súnesis (G4907), the ability to put facts together, knowledge, understanding, intellect (Mar_12:33). Sometimes the soul means the mind, feelings (Mat_11:29; Luk_2:35; Joh_10:24; Act_14:2, Act_14:22; Act_15:24; Heb_12:3; 1Pe_1:22; 2Pe_2:8, 2Pe_2:14; Sept.: Exo_23:9; 1Sa_1:15; Isa_44:19). "With all one's soul" (a.t.) means with his entire affection (Mat_22:37; Mar_12:30, Mar_12:33; Luk_10:27; Sept.: Deu_26:16; Deu_30:2, Deu_30:6, Deu_30:10; 2Ch_15:15; 2Ch_31:21); Ek psuchḗs (ek [G1537], out of), "from the soul" (a.t.), meaning heartily (Eph_6:6; Col_3:23). To be of one soul means to be unanimous, united in affection and will (Act_4:32; Php_1:27). That which strictly belongs to the person himself, often ascribed to the soul as the seat of the desires, affections, and appetites (Mat_12:18; Mat_26:38; Mar_14:34; Luk_1:46; Luk_12:19; Joh_12:27; Heb_10:38; 3Jn_1:2; Rev_18:14; Sept.: Gen_27:4, Gen_27:19; Isa_1:14; Isa_33:18).
(III) Metonymically, a soul, a living thing in which is hē psuchḗ, life.
(A) More often of a man, a soul, a living person, pása psuchḗ (pás [G3956], every), every soul, every person, everyone (Act_2:43; Act_3:23; Rom_13:1). In a periphrasis, pása psuchḗ anthrṓpou ([G444], man), "every soul of man" meaning every man (Rom_2:9); psuchás anthrṓpōn, "souls of men" (a.t. [Luk_9:56 {TR}; simply psuchḗ, Sept.: Gen_17:14; Lev_5:1-2; Deu_24:8]). Psuchḗ anthrṓpou, soul of man (Num_19:11, Num_19:13). In enumerations (Act_2:41, "about three thousand souls"; Act_7:14; Act_27:37; 1Pe_3:20; Sept.: Gen_46:15, Gen_46:18, Gen_46:26-27; Exo_1:5; Deu_10:22).
(B) Specifically for a servant, slave (Rev_18:13), probably female slaves in distinction from the preceding sṓmata (G4983), bodies (cf. ánthrōpos [G444], man, I, C, 5); Sept.: Gen_12:5.
Deriv.: ápsuchos (G895), lifeless, inanimate, without life; dípsuchos (G1374), two- souled, double minded; isópsuchos (G2473), like-minded; oligópsuchos (G3642), little- souled, of little spirit, fainthearted, fearful; súmpsuchos (G4861), joint-souled, agreeing with one accord; psuchikós (G5591), natural, physical, pertaining to the animal instinct in man.
Syn.: kardía (G2588), the heart as the seat of life; diánoia (G1271), understanding; zōḗ (G2222), life as a principle; bíos (G979), possessions of life; bíōsis (G981), the spending of one's life; agōgḗ (G72), conduct; noús (G3563), mind, the seat of reflective consciousness; pneúma (G4151), spirit, only in man as the means of communication with God while soul is held in common with animals as the consciousness of one's environment.

This is from Zodhiates, a Greek by birth that was also a Greek professor. He knows Greek better than you do...

Regarding the passage, this is a passage from a book full of symbolism.

The whole Bible is a book full of symbolism...that is why the study of symbolisms is a main principle of Biblical hermeneutics, which you obviously know little to nothing about...particularly when it comes to interpreting whether or not something is addressed literally or figuratively. Your point here is another one of your fallacious arguments...

This book portrays Jesus as a lamb having been slain having 7 eyes. It also portrays Jesus as a man. It portrays death and Hades as riding horses. It portrays the city of Babylon as a prostitute. So, if you want to use this passage to prove your point you'll need to explain how it's literal and not symbolic.

I'm sorry...but you obviously are just too engrossed in your biased nonsense to be able to hold a concise conversation. If you want to cry about John seeing the souls of people in heaven, then I have to ask what your take is upon the after life. Are you are Jehovah's Witness? Because you sure sound like one. Anyone with half a working brain can read that text and see that there is absolutely NOTHING used symbolically. I know that you can't stand the thought of being proven wrong, but you have been now for the last three posts.

So, exactly what do you think is symbolic in these three verses...souls? The Word of God? Their witness? "They cried?" The words "earth," "blood," or "robes?" You are the one that needs to explain why you take any word in those three verses as symbolic instead of literal. Oh, wait...I forgot, you don't use a complete Biblical hermeneutic, you just use those principles that support your bias. The basic rule of thumb when it comes to interpreting whether a word is used literally or figuratively, is that it is taken LITERALLY unless there is a reason given in the text that suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally.

Do you think God has feathers? Or that He is a giant chicken in the sky because Scripture says He has wings? Like Paul said, don't reason childishly...reason like a man seeking the truth. There is nothing in the text to suggest that any words in that text are used figuratively or symbolically...you are just backed into a corner again and don't like that your bias can't handle the Scriptural facts.

Also, why are they under the alter?

That has nothing to do with the current conversation, stop trying to side step issues...

Also, as we saw from Gen 2 and the examples above, a soul requires a body.

As we see above, that all depends upon the sentence, context, and which definition these give to the word...

So, if these under the alter have bodies, this passage doesn't prove your point as it isn't spirits under the alter, but souls.

Still trying to play word games...stop it. The word soul in the text means individuals, "the souls of those who had been slain." They have no physical body, only their spiritual body...but again, you keep believing that heretical nonsense from false religions and see where it gets you.

If the passage is using soul abstractly of life itself, what is under the alter, because we saw that a living soul required a body.

Nope...it speaks of individual human beings who were murdered for their faith in the last days, who are now standing before God in heaven...no breath, no physical body. The context and sentence tell any spiritually minded person that the word soul here takes on the meaning of individual person. Like it or not, you are flesh and spirit, and when your flesh dies, YOU will continue either in flames or in God's presence. That is what the WHOLE Word of God teaches when we fully examine it in detail and don't allow our bias to direct our thinking.

One more point, what John was seeing was the future. We don't know how far into the future it was. Since it could be the very distant future we can't use the passage to claim that's what happens today.

More nonsense carnal reasoning in order to save your theology from the garbage can...sorry, it doesn't work. Paul said to be absent from the Body of Christ is to be present with God in heaven...he did not have to use the word spirit in the text in order to be addressing that we are both body and spirit. Your continuous denial of the facts of Scripture solely to protect your false bias is not very becoming of a person calling himself a Christian, much less calling himself a truth seeker.

Also, since it is a vision of the future, how do you know that those souls have not already been resurrected at that point?

REALLY!!! OK, so you have just demonstrated that you don't pay attention to details unless it helps your bias. Where does Scripture tell you that you will be resurrected? On earth, or in heaven? In heaven you do not need a physical body, so why on earth would you be resurrected into a physical glorified body in heaven? Plus, following the chronology of Revelation, the Great Tribulation has not yet started in chapter 6, and no one is resurrected until chapter 20 when those who were saved and walking with God are brought back to reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom. That's how we know...because we take the words of Scripture as factual truth.

Since soul and spirit are two different words with two different meanings, again, this passage does not support your claim that man is a spirit.

Negative...it is your biased, false presupposition at work here again. I have demonstrated with Scripture and scholarly work that the words soul and spirit are used interchangeably in Scripture.

If you'd like we can go over, Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison, the Transfiguration, the Thief on the Cross, Forever and ever in Rev 20, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God is the God of the living. I've studied all of the passages that people use to promote this doctrine that man is a spirit and I can show the error in understanding in each of these passages. Man is not a spirit. There is nothing in the Scripture that says he is. The idea is simply the influence of Greek Philosophy on the New Testament. If you apply those principles of hermeneutics without the presupposition that man is a spirit, you'll come to a very different conclusion.

Actually, you have demonstrated that you do not know how to accurately study Scripture, that you do not utilize a complete Biblical hermeneutic, and therefore you misinterpret (willfully) the meaning of words in texts in order to support your false bias. My best friend in high school was a JW; as a youth of only 16, we studied and debated this very topic until he got tired of losing and called upon his JW uncles, then his church elders...and finally, the "pastor" himself. I put all of them in the trash can because what they (and you) hold to on this point is not Biblical.

What you have done here in this conversation so far, is the exact same thing that calvinists do in trying to prove that their false doctrines are not false...giving words meanings that the context and text do not allow, assigning meanings to words in a text that supports your bias rather than the clear intended meaning of the Spirit in those texts...taking words and verses out of their contexts, both immediate, and topically.

No, we don't have to discuss any of those things, because I am confident that you follow JW doctrine, regardless of whether you call yourself one or not...and if you are one, you should probably be banned from this forum before you pervert other's theology and send them on their way to the Lake of Fire.

..

 

[GodB4Us]

Actually, we are commanded to study God's Word intelligently, that is one reason that God gave you a brain. Paul says to study to show that you are approved of God, in order to be able to rightly interpret His Word. Prayer and the Holy Spirit all work together for the person who is being a truth seeker.

..

I repeat a portion of my post again;

"....intellectual studying will not benefit unless one is relying on the Lord for wisdom in understanding His words. "

Intellectual men of the world do not understand His words because they do not have His wisdom nor are they asking for His wisdom. Saved believers should always be asking the Lord and relying on His wisdom in understanding His words as in having ears to hear & eyes to see.

So trust Him as your Good Shepherd & Friend to do that rather than on men of whom have educated you or even yourself in regards to your flesh & will & zeal to learn.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth........... 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

 

[Butch5]

I have already called you out on your weak hermeneutical taxing, so I won't go over it again.

Nice try, but your passages do not prove what you claim...

..

"Weak hermeneutic". That's funny. I asked you for a single passage of Scripture showing that man is a spirit. You present several passages, not one of which said man is a spirit. Instead, you presented passages that showed possession of a spirit. That's some hermeneutic. Maybe now you could show us a single passage of Scripture that says man is a spirit.

 

[Butch5]

I do believe that I said a COMPLETE Biblical hermeneutic...the Grammatical Historical "method" as you call it, is only one out of 27...so if that is the ONLY one that you use, its no wonder that you have this wrong.



Not if you are only using one out of twenty-seven principles...



Actually, that is false. If you honestly care about someone's eternal destiny, then it is very Christian like to ensure that the person you are talking to knows what they are doing, and educate them if they do not.



No...read what I said again. I said that I have not done a detailed study...there is a difference. And, BTW, you demonstrate in your posts that YOU have not done one either...unless you just conveniently ignore those passages that show your interpretation to be in error. That is understandable...the flesh doesn't like to be told its wrong.



Then that answers the question on the cherry picking that you have done in order to only support the false interpretation you came up with.



I could set aside what I know, except that what I know on this subject is what the Scriptures clearly teach. You ignore or try in vain to explain away what the fullness of the Scriptures teach...because you have not done what you are telling me to do. Sorry, but the shoe is on your foot, not mine.


Therefore, you testify against yourself that you will call a demon an unclean spirit from the word for "breath" but then renig on the fact that the same word used when it comes to man is only a breath instead of spirit. You show yourself to be a bias defender, not a truth seeker.

..

It's abundantly clear that you haven't done a study of the spirit of man in Scripture. If you had you would know that man is not a spirit. If as you say you haven't done a "detailed" study, implying that you have done some study of the subject, I can only conclude that your hermeneutic is severely lacking as there is NOTHING in Scripture that says man is a spirit. That idea comes solely from your presuppositions. It's interesting that you talk about being honest about someone's eternal destiny and then when it's shown that you're misleading them you refuse to reconsider your position. As I said in my original post, the reason you can't answer the question you were asked is because your presupposition is wrong. Maybe if you were willing to consider that you may be wrong, you would be able to answer the person you speak of in the OP. But, you did say the flesh hates to be wrong.

 

[Butch5]

And that is why you fail.



The word breath is used figuratively for spirit...but you reject that because it goes against your false bias.



Yes...the word for breath is used figuratively for spirit when addressing God...and also when addressing human beings, which I demonstrated in other passages that I have yet to see your rebuttal on, so I will wait til we get there...




Yes, that is a logical conclusion if you are only going by one passage, but again (since you don't know how to study Scripture accurately) when we take all of the passages together that have to do with this topic, we observe in Scripture that we are spirits dwelling within mortal bodies. To deny that is, well...we'll save that for later.

Firstly, your arrogance speaks volumes. It's been my experience that arrogance is often used to disguise a lack of knowledge. Some seem to think if they talk down to people it makes them look more intelligent. You've got so much error here I don't know where to begin. You start by contradicting yourself. First you said,





"The word breath is used figuratively for spirit...but you reject that because it goes against your false bias."

So, you claim that I reject the idea that breath is used figuratively for spirit, yet I stated that several times throughout this thread. Then in the next sentence I said breath is used figuratively of God, which you acknowledged, who is spirit. If God is spirit and I said breath is used figuratively of God, then I've admitted that breath is used figuratively of spirit. This was your statement.


"Yes...the word for breath is used figuratively for spirit when addressing God...and also when addressing human beings, which I demonstrated in other passages that I have yet to see your rebuttal on, so I will wait til we get there..."

However, you've not shown that spirit is used of a human being. Do human beings have flesh and bone? I think most of us, not pushing an agenda, would say yes. Let's look at what Jesus said.

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Lk. 24:39 KJV)

According to Jesus a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone. Man has flesh and bone. In that statement Jesus was telling them that He is not a spirit. If Jesus was made, in all ways, like unto His brethren, and He's not a spirit, how can they be? They can't be.

Your submission is duly noted and rejected based entirely upon Scripture. The sinner does not have any part of God dwelling within him...contrary to your earlier comment about not assuming things, you are caught red handed in an unwarranted and illegitimate assumption. Way to go...

Really? Show us from Scripture. If you can't it's assumption. Gen.2:7 gives us a word picture of something being breathed out of God and into man.

Yes, indeed...and you are misinterpreting the use of the words in order to fit your presupposition that is based upon another false interpretation solely for your bias. Sometimes the breath speaks of actual breath - yet here, as in other places, the word breath is used metaphorically for "life" itself, and does not mean spirit. While in the passages where it does mean spirit, not life or breath, you...because your bias demands it...misinterpret them to mean simply breath.

when it's used as spirit it's metaphorical also.

Like a hot dog...a little truth wrapped up in deception. The spirit in man comes from God, nothing in Scripture says that it is part of God. And...which is still coming, I wait to see what you do with the other passages that I gave that destroys your supposition.

I addressed the passages you gave that didn't show that man is a spirit. We're still waiting for a single passage....

First...I doubt that you actually know what a logical fallacy is, and use it whenever you are cornered like so many others do.
Second, the source of a doctrine is everything...you again demonstrate that you don't know what you are doing, but really think that you do. I would continue on that point, but it is too laborious and you wouldn't listen anyway.



Yep, just as I stated above...JW nonsense. I thought you might go there, but your point is lost as you have lost the discussion. Verse 12 the woman cries out...practically every commentator and theologian worth his salt (not liberal moron theologians) identify her scream because she was expecting to see a demonic spirit that normally appears as the person she is supposed to be calling up, in case you don't know it, that is what Scripture calls a familiar spirit. She cried out because instead of her demon cohort, Samuel actually appeared.

Wow, talk about assumptions. "Every commentator and theologian worth his salt" = all the ones that agree with you, correct? I don't care what commentators think, I see commentators that are wrong all over the place. One can find a commentator that agrees with just about every position out there. It's clear you have nothing from Scripture or you'd probably have posted it. On the other hand 1 Chron 10 tells us plainly that Saul sought a information from a familiar spirit which we know was a demon. You can go with commentators and perpetuate error, I'll go with the Scriptures.

Not too mention that the Scripture says that it was Samuel, not a familiar spirit...of course, you can continue to call God a liar who had the Spirit write this through the person who wrote it, but I would not recommend that. If Scripture says that it was Samuel who came up and spoke to Saul, then it was Samuel who came up and spoke to Saul. You saying that the clear text means something different just because your biased theology tells you to, is...again...calling God a liar. Nice try, but you fail again.

Well, let's see, Saul perceived that it was Samuel. So, how would we expect the narrative to go? The book is a historical record of what happened. If they thought they were speaking to Samuel, then they're going to record it as Samuel. They're not going to say, well, Saul perceived that it was Samuel, but, you know, maybe it wasn't Samuel, maybe it was demon or maybe it was ghost, or a angel, or something else. It's recorded from the perspective of those who were there. However, as I pointed out 1 Chronicles 10 clears up any question by telling us that Saul inquired of a familiar spirit. We know that the woman saw gods, she told Saul she saw gods. The Scriptures tell us that the "gods" of the nations are demons.

16 They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 They sacrificed to demons, not to God, To gods they did not know, To new gods, new arrivals That your fathers did not fear. (Deut. 32:16-17 NKJ)

Saw was the king of Israel. I think it's a pretty good be that he knew the gods of the pagans were demons. The woman said she saw gods. She saw demons.
I'm really going to have to question your hermeneutics if you believe that the prophet of God answered Saul through a demon possessed women. Again, where did Samuel supposedly get the answer? It couldn't have been from God because God wasn't answering Saul any more.

Yes, he went to inquire from a medium, but he didn't believe it was a demon that he would have spoken to. He believed that it would have been Samuel...besides that, your point is completely negated, again, by the fact that Scripture says it was Samuel who came up. Your presupposition is adequately destroyed by this singular passage...but you continue to believe your false theory simply because you don't want people to see that you are wrong. That is not a very healthy or spiritually mature thing to do, butch.

Wow, now you know what Saul thought? Awesome hermeneutic! And, making assumptions about Scripture is spiritually mature? You said Saul didn't believe it was a demon that he would have spoken to, Yet 1 Chron 10 says that Saul inquired of a demon. So, do I believe your mind reading abilities or do I believe the Scriptures?

I gave no ad hominems...playing underhandedly because you cannot win the argument is not becoming, butch. You should calm down...

Then you obviously don't know what they are.

Exactly what do you mean by "should stand on its own?" The Scripture speaks very clearly...Samuel came up from the abode of the dead. Samuel...not "his spirit" but he himself, precisely because human beings are spirits temporarily dwelling within physical mortal bodies. The fact that you continue to argue against that CLEAR Biblical teaching, says much about you...

Simple. If your doctrine is valid it should stand on its own. Yet, you haven't presented a single passage of Scripture stating that man is spirit. You keep claiming it's clear Biblical teaching. If that's the case the you should have plenty of evidence to prove it. Yet, here we are still waiting for the first passage.

Playing underhandedly again...that says much about you, too. I made no fallacy...the only one in this conversation that has, is yourself. But nice try...people who don't like to lose arguments often act in the same way, but it does not work.



Now you are being purposely childish. Anyone with a working brain can read the text, even though the word spirit does not appear in the text (and...guess what...it doesn't have to - unless you are playing childish games because you don't want to lose). Samuel was dead...yet God allowed him to be brought up for purposes of His own design, and it was (doh!) Samuel the spirit, not Samuel the dead body decomposing in the grave. Again, this singular passage demonstrates that your claim is in error, and another fallacy that you keep clinging to.

There's nothing childish about being accurate with the text. If you were you wouldn't fall for this false doctrine. You claim it was Samuel's spirit, yet the passage says no such thing. So, either you're making an assumption based on your presuppositions or you have other Scripture that speaks of Samuel's spirit interacting in the world.

First, when the woman said she saw gods, we know that she did not see gods because there is only one...so once again, you demonstrate that you will reach out for nonsense in order to make yourself seem like you know what you are talking about. Second, 1 Chr. 10 does not say that he inquired of a demon, it says that he inquired of a medium...in case your faulty education doesn't tell you this, a medium is a person, not a demon. Third, Scripture does not lie, and it says that Samuel came up...therefore, for anyone seeking the truth on the subject, Samuel came up, not a demon. You play fast and loose with Scripture in order to protect your bias, and that will bite you in the butt one day. Fourth, God did not answer Saul...Samuel did. Every rebuttal of yours has been thoroughly put in the trash can.



The only one with a presupposition here, is you. I

I thought you said you know hermeneutics. Your replies reveal otherwise. It's clear that your presuppositions are driving your interpretation. You state things that are so easily refuted. Like above, your claim that it was Samuel's spirit that spoke to Saul when the passage says no such thing. Saying "anyone with a brain" doesn't make your statement valid. What it does is show that you have a lack of support for you claim. It's kind of like that saying about preachers, if you have the evidence, you speak to the congregation. If you have a little evidence, you yell, if you have no evidence, you yell and pound on the podium. That's what we're getting here.


Here too, what you claim is easily refuted.

13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. (1 Sam. 28:13 KJV)
And the king said to her, Fear not; tell me whom thou has seen. And the woman said to him, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. (1 Sam. 28:13 LXA)
1 Samuel 28:13 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ ὁ βασιλεύς μὴ φοβοῦ εἰπὸν τίνα ἑόρακας καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Θεοὺς ἑόρακα ἀναβαίνοντας ἐκ τῆς γῆς (1 Sam. 28:13 BGT)
WTT 1 Samuel 28:13 וַיֹּ֙אמֶר לָ֥הּ הַמֶּ֛לֶךְ אַל־תִּֽירְאִ֖י כִּ֣י מָ֣ה רָאִ֑ית וַתֹּ֤אמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אֶל־שָׁא֔וּל אֱלֹהִ֥ים רָאִ֖יתִי עֹלִ֥ים מִן־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(1 Sam. 28:13 WTT)

Even Paul said to the Corinthians, 'though there be many gods'. The woman saw elohiym. She didn't see spirits or a spirit, she saw gods.

For someone who talks about hermeneutics and being true to Scripture, you're not being very true to Scripture yourself. You accuse me of being underhanded, yet here you say she didn't see gods when the text plainly says she saw gods.

I don't mean any offense, but you really would do well to lose the attitude. You're understanding of Scripture is not as advanced as you seem to think it is. I'm embarrassed for you. A little humility and consideration of your positions would go a long way. There is no shame in being wrong, however, I can't say the same for intentional ignorance. Ignorance from arrogance, in my opinion, is shameful.

 

[Butch5]

Again, if that one single principle is all that you use, butch, it is YOU who doesn't understand hermeneutics very well. Stop trying to call the kettle black...



Ah, but it does to anyone not brainwashed by nonsense. Everyone else here can see that but you.



Again, childish nonsense reasoning. There are passages that speak of things and they never use the word that they are speaking about, covenant is one of them. If you are going to continue acting like that, and using fallacious nonsense like this in order to try to prove that you are right, then you are only going to hurt yourself.



Once again you demonstrate a willfull ignorance of definitions that you don't like, because they show that what you cling to is error. The word soul also means individual...would you like me to embarrass you again and provide the passages where the word soul means individuals? Hint...this is one of them. Yes, the soul is part of the spirit, and that in and of itself puts your claim on its butt...but you refuse to see it.



Yes, but that does not prove your point. Again, I can provide numerous texts that use the word soul for the individual person...physical body or disembodied human spirit. You lose again...



Yes...and as long as you continue to interpret breath the wrong way just to justify (in your own mind) your false theology, then you will never be able to come to the truth of the Scriptures.



Yes...the soul shall die spiritually, meaning that it will be cast into the lake of fire on judgment day...

Revelation 20:13-15
13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Wow...wait! Did the Holy Spirit through John just say that "anyone's name"!!! Who stands before God on judgment day, butch...you in your flesh, or you as your spirit? I won't bother waiting for your answer, because you will try to explain away the clear meaning of the text...

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The cowardly...liars...etc will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death - why are the spirits of people cast into the lake of fire? Because spirit cannot be destroyed, it has to be dealt with another way. When Scripture talks about a soul dying, it is either speaking of the physical person's death, or being cast into the Lake of Fire, called "the second death" for a reason. If you end up there, it will be YOU...who screwed up in this life in your physical body, because you are a physical body and spirit, not just a breath like the seducing spirits messing with you tell you.



Well, the soul is not in the blood, it is part of the spirit man...but you keep believing that heretical JW nonsense and see where it gets you. I guarantee that you will not like it.

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Lev. 17:11 KJV)



Again...let me educate you a little (if it will do any good). Lets take the word charis...it has 16 different possible meanings in Greek depending upon how it is utilized in a sentence and context. Using charis as an example here of what you are trying to do, according to you we should only use one of those meanings every time we find the word charis. That is not only idiotic (and for clarification, I am not calling you an idiot), it leads to false doctrine and breaks a number of principles of Biblical interpretation.

If you cannot utilize your grammatical principle that you claim to use, in a legitimate way, then you shoot yourself in the foot like you just have (and have at least two other times in this discussion). A word has any number of possible meanings in a language, and that word gets its definition from the context and sentence in which it is utilized...you do not get to pick and choose the meaning just because it suits your false bias. That is about as illegitimate as what evolutionists do with the facts of nature in order to make you believe in evolution nonsense.



You keep telling yourself that, but its sheer nonsense. Just like the words 'salvation' and 'eternal life' are used as metonyms for one another, so, too, the words soul and spirit. Again, it all depends upon how it is used in a sentence and context...which you ignore (so far)...the word soul is used 93 times in the NT alone, and out of those 93 times it has various meanings such as soul, spirit, flesh, heart, seat of the emotions, individual person...here, educate yourself:

ψυχή
psuchḗ; gen. psuchḗs, fem. noun from psúchō (G5594), to breathe, blow. Soul, that immaterial part of man held in common with animals. One's understanding of this word's relationship to related terms is contingent upon his position regarding biblical anthropology. Dichotomists view man as consisting of two parts (or substances), material and immaterial, with spirit and soul denoting the immaterial and bearing only a functional and not a metaphysical difference. Trichotomists also view man as consisting of two parts (or substances), but with spirit and soul representing in some contexts a real subdivision of the immaterial. This latter view is here adopted. Accordingly, psuchḗ is contrasted to sṓma (G4983), body, and pneúma (G4151), spirit (1Th_5:23). The psuchḗ, no less than the sárx (G4561), flesh, belongs to the lower region of man's being. Sometimes psuchḗ stands for the immaterial part of man made up of the soul (psuchḗ in the restrictive sense of the life element), and the spirit pneúma. However, animals are not said to possess a spirit; this is only in man, giving him the ability to communicate with God. Also breath (Sept.: Gen_1:30; Job_41:12), and in the NT, usually meaning the vital breath, the life element through which the body lives and feels, the principle of life manifested in the breath.
(I) The soul as the vital principle, the animating element in men and animals.
(A) Generally (Luk_12:20; Act_20:10; Sept.: Gen_35:18; 1Ki_17:21). Of beasts (Rev_8:9).
(B) Metonymically, for life itself (Mat_6:25; Mat_20:28; Mar_3:4; Mar_10:45; Luk_6:9; Luk_12:22-23; Luk_14:26; Luk_21:19; Act_15:26; Act_20:24; Act_27:10, Act_27:22; Rom_16:4; Php_2:30; 1Th_2:8; Rev_12:11). To lay down one's life (Joh_10:11, Joh_10:15, Joh_10:17; Joh_13:37-38; Joh_15:13; 1Jn_3:16). To seek one's life (Mat_2:20; Rom_11:3; Sept.: Exo_4:19). Including the idea of life or the spirit, both natural and eternal (Mat_16:26; Mar_8:36-37 [cf. Luk_9:25]). In antithetic declarations of the Lord Jesus, psuchḗ refers not only to natural life, but also to life as continued beyond the grave (Mat_10:39; Mat_16:25; Mar_8:35; Luk_9:24; Luk_17:33; Joh_12:25). Generally, the soul of man, his spiritual and immortal nature with its higher and lower powers, its rational and natural faculties (Mat_10:28; 2Co_1:23; Heb_6:19; Heb_10:39; Heb_13:17; Jas_1:21; Jas_5:20; 1Pe_1:9; 1Pe_2:11, 1Pe_2:25; 1Pe_4:19). Generally the soul (1Co_15:45, a living soul in allusion to Gen_2:7; Rev_16:3; Sept.: Gen_1:24; Gen_2:19; Gen_9:10, Gen_9:12, Gen_9:15).
(C) Of a departed soul, separate from the body; spoken in Greek mythology of the ghosts inhabiting Hades (Act_2:27, Act_2:31, quoted from Psa_16:10; Rev_6:9; Rev_20:4).
(II) Specifically the soul as the sentient principle, the seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites, passions, the lower aspect of one's nature. Distinguished in Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy from the higher rational nature, expressed by noús (G3563), mind, and pneúma (G4151), spirit belonging to man only. This distinction is also followed by the Sept. and sometimes in the NT (cf. pneúma [G4151], spirit, II, B). In 1Th_5:23 the whole man is indicated as consisting of spirit, soul, and body; soul and spirit, the immaterial part of man upon which the word of God is operative (Heb_4:12); "my soul . . . and my spirit," the immaterial part of personality with which Mary could magnify the Lord (Luk_1:46-47). Distinguished from diánoia (G1271), understanding or mind, because soul is related to the affections (Mat_22:37; Mar_12:30; Luk_10:27). From súnesis (G4907), the ability to put facts together, knowledge, understanding, intellect (Mar_12:33). Sometimes the soul means the mind, feelings (Mat_11:29; Luk_2:35; Joh_10:24; Act_14:2, Act_14:22; Act_15:24; Heb_12:3; 1Pe_1:22; 2Pe_2:8, 2Pe_2:14; Sept.: Exo_23:9; 1Sa_1:15; Isa_44:19). "With all one's soul" (a.t.) means with his entire affection (Mat_22:37; Mar_12:30, Mar_12:33; Luk_10:27; Sept.: Deu_26:16; Deu_30:2, Deu_30:6, Deu_30:10; 2Ch_15:15; 2Ch_31:21); Ek psuchḗs (ek [G1537], out of), "from the soul" (a.t.), meaning heartily (Eph_6:6; Col_3:23). To be of one soul means to be unanimous, united in affection and will (Act_4:32; Php_1:27). That which strictly belongs to the person himself, often ascribed to the soul as the seat of the desires, affections, and appetites (Mat_12:18; Mat_26:38; Mar_14:34; Luk_1:46; Luk_12:19; Joh_12:27; Heb_10:38; 3Jn_1:2; Rev_18:14; Sept.: Gen_27:4, Gen_27:19; Isa_1:14; Isa_33:18).
(III) Metonymically, a soul, a living thing in which is hē psuchḗ, life.
(A) More often of a man, a soul, a living person, pása psuchḗ (pás [G3956], every), every soul, every person, everyone (Act_2:43; Act_3:23; Rom_13:1). In a periphrasis, pása psuchḗ anthrṓpou ([G444], man), "every soul of man" meaning every man (Rom_2:9); psuchás anthrṓpōn, "souls of men" (a.t. [Luk_9:56 {TR}; simply psuchḗ, Sept.: Gen_17:14; Lev_5:1-2; Deu_24:8]). Psuchḗ anthrṓpou, soul of man (Num_19:11, Num_19:13). In enumerations (Act_2:41, "about three thousand souls"; Act_7:14; Act_27:37; 1Pe_3:20; Sept.: Gen_46:15, Gen_46:18, Gen_46:26-27; Exo_1:5; Deu_10:22).
(B) Specifically for a servant, slave (Rev_18:13), probably female slaves in distinction from the preceding sṓmata (G4983), bodies (cf. ánthrōpos [G444], man, I, C, 5); Sept.: Gen_12:5.
Deriv.: ápsuchos (G895), lifeless, inanimate, without life; dípsuchos (G1374), two- souled, double minded; isópsuchos (G2473), like-minded; oligópsuchos (G3642), little- souled, of little spirit, fainthearted, fearful; súmpsuchos (G4861), joint-souled, agreeing with one accord; psuchikós (G5591), natural, physical, pertaining to the animal instinct in man.
Syn.: kardía (G2588), the heart as the seat of life; diánoia (G1271), understanding; zōḗ (G2222), life as a principle; bíos (G979), possessions of life; bíōsis (G981), the spending of one's life; agōgḗ (G72), conduct; noús (G3563), mind, the seat of reflective consciousness; pneúma (G4151), spirit, only in man as the means of communication with God while soul is held in common with animals as the consciousness of one's environment.

This is from Zodhiates, a Greek by birth that was also a Greek professor. He knows Greek better than you do...



The whole Bible is a book full of symbolism...that is why the study of symbolisms is a main principle of Biblical hermeneutics, which you obviously know little to nothing about...particularly when it comes to interpreting whether or not something is addressed literally or figuratively. Your point here is another one of your fallacious arguments...



I'm sorry...but you obviously are just too engrossed in your biased nonsense to be able to hold a concise conversation. If you want to cry about John seeing the souls of people in heaven, then I have to ask what your take is upon the after life. Are you are Jehovah's Witness? Because you sure sound like one. Anyone with half a working brain can read that text and see that there is absolutely NOTHING used symbolically. I know that you can't stand the thought of being proven wrong, but you have been now for the last three posts.

So, exactly what do you think is symbolic in these three verses...souls? The Word of God? Their witness? "They cried?" The words "earth," "blood," or "robes?" You are the one that needs to explain why you take any word in those three verses as symbolic instead of literal. Oh, wait...I forgot, you don't use a complete Biblical hermeneutic, you just use those principles that support your bias. The basic rule of thumb when it comes to interpreting whether a word is used literally or figuratively, is that it is taken LITERALLY unless there is a reason given in the text that suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally.

Do you think God has feathers? Or that He is a giant chicken in the sky because Scripture says He has wings? Like Paul said, don't reason childishly...reason like a man seeking the truth. There is nothing in the text to suggest that any words in that text are used figuratively or symbolically...you are just backed into a corner again and don't like that your bias can't handle the Scriptural facts.



That has nothing to do with the current conversation, stop trying to side step issues...



As we see above, that all depends upon the sentence, context, and which definition these give to the word...



Still trying to play word games...stop it. The word soul in the text means individuals, "the souls of those who had been slain." They have no physical body, only their spiritual body...but again, you keep believing that heretical nonsense from false religions and see where it gets you.



Nope...it speaks of individual human beings who were murdered for their faith in the last days, who are now standing before God in heaven...no breath, no physical body. The context and sentence tell any spiritually minded person that the word soul here takes on the meaning of individual person. Like it or not, you are flesh and spirit, and when your flesh dies, YOU will continue either in flames or in God's presence. That is what the WHOLE Word of God teaches when we fully examine it in detail and don't allow our bias to direct our thinking.



More nonsense carnal reasoning in order to save your theology from the garbage can...sorry, it doesn't work. Paul said to be absent from the Body of Christ is to be present with God in heaven...he did not have to use the word spirit in the text in order to be addressing that we are both body and spirit. Your continuous denial of the facts of Scripture solely to protect your false bias is not very becoming of a person calling himself a Christian, much less calling himself a truth seeker.



REALLY!!! OK, so you have just demonstrated that you don't pay attention to details unless it helps your bias. Where does Scripture tell you that you will be resurrected? On earth, or in heaven? In heaven you do not need a physical body, so why on earth would you be resurrected into a physical glorified body in heaven? Plus, following the chronology of Revelation, the Great Tribulation has not yet started in chapter 6, and no one is resurrected until chapter 20 when those who were saved and walking with God are brought back to reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom. That's how we know...because we take the words of Scripture as factual truth.



Negative...it is your biased, false presupposition at work here again. I have demonstrated with Scripture and scholarly work that the words soul and spirit are used interchangeably in Scripture.



Actually, you have demonstrated that you do not know how to accurately study Scripture, that you do not utilize a complete Biblical hermeneutic, and therefore you misinterpret (willfully) the meaning of words in texts in order to support your false bias. My best friend in high school was a JW; as a youth of only 16, we studied and debated this very topic until he got tired of losing and called upon his JW uncles, then his church elders...and finally, the "pastor" himself. I put all of them in the trash can because what they (and you) hold to on this point is not Biblical.

What you have done here in this conversation so far, is the exact same thing that calvinists do in trying to prove that their false doctrines are not false...giving words meanings that the context and text do not allow, assigning meanings to words in a text that supports your bias rather than the clear intended meaning of the Spirit in those texts...taking words and verses out of their contexts, both immediate, and topically.

No, we don't have to discuss any of those things, because I am confident that you follow JW doctrine, regardless of whether you call yourself one or not...and if you are one, you should probably be banned from this forum before you pervert other's theology and send them on their way to the Lake of Fire.

..

Dude, I don't think you're even paying attention to the conversation. I said that the man and the breath of life from God became a living soul. That is an individual, it is a person. What are you talking about saying you can show that a soul is an individual? Of course it is. The more I read the more I understand your hermeneutics. Tell me, how does Zhodiates opinion prove your point? What do I care about what someone else thinks something means. Show me Scripture, oh wait, you can't. I gave you Scripture, you give me a commentator. Can I assume from that that your source of authority is Commentary and not Scripture?

You said,

"REALLY!!! OK, so you have just demonstrated that you don't pay attention to details unless it helps your bias. Where does Scripture tell you that you will be resurrected? On earth, or in heaven? In heaven you do not need a physical body, so why on earth would you be resurrected into a physical glorified body in heaven? Plus, following the chronology of Revelation, the Great Tribulation has not yet started in chapter 6, and no one is resurrected until chapter 20 when those who were saved and walking with God are brought back to reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom. That's how we know...because we take the words of Scripture as factual truth."

Did I say anything about being resurrected in Heaven? No. What does that have to do with anything? But, let's get back to those details. Revelation isn't in chronological order. It jumps around. John was told that what he saw was in the future. We don't know how far into the future it was. It could still be many years until those events happen. Since that is the case, the passage of the souls under the alter cannot be used to prove what happens today. So, the passage doesn't prove your point. Not to mention that it's in a book full of symbolism. The fact that they are under the alter is pertinent to understanding the passage. However, since you just brushed it off and didn't address it, I suspect you don't know what it means that they are under the alter. If not, then I suspect you don't understand the passage. Thus, your use of the passage is superficial and you're missing the point of the passage.