Have you done any research on Genesis 9:6 translation to use against abortion?

[Dave_Noonan]

This is intriguing. Do you mean the word, or the concept?

Neither is there. The concept (at least as it’s understood within Christianity) comes from Platonic/neo-Platonic dualism and is pretty foreign to Israelite religion.

 

[TCEL]

Neither is there. The concept (at least as it’s understood within Christianity) comes from Platonic/neo-Platonic dualism and is pretty foreign to Israelite religion.

The concept is in the Catholic Canon. The idea of the Incarnation would have been pretty foreign to Israelite religion too; yet the seeds for understanding were present. As a curious follow-up, as a Christian, you believe we have souls?

 

[dmwessel]

Not sure what translation you’re reading, but there’s no “soul” in the Old Testament.

“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.” (KJV Gen. 2:7)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The concept is in the Catholic Canon.

Evidence (OT) please? The word sometimes (I would say erroneously) translated “soul” in Biblical Hebrew (nephesh) refers to the ability to breath or life-force (Gn. 2:7), which the Israelites equated–and this concept also explains why “spirit” and “breath” and “wind” are also interchangeable (ruach). In another sense, nephesh is used as a reflexive–the “self” which perhaps is something like consciousness, but I don’t think bears much of any resemblance to the dualistic, Platonic notion of soul that most Christians ascribe to.

The idea of the Incarnation would have been pretty foreign to Israelite religion too; yet the seeds for understanding were present.

I think the Son of Man in Daniel 7 fits the bill, as do passages like Genesis 32. A good book (by an orthodox Jewish scholar) showing that the incarnation is NOT foreign to the Jewish perspective is Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ.

As a curious follow-up, as a Christian, you believe we have souls?

Certainly not in the Platonic or Cartesian dualistic sense. I do think humans have consciousness/minds.

 

[TCEL]

Evidence (OT) please? The word sometimes (I would say erroneously) translated “soul” in Biblical Hebrew (nephesh) refers to the ability to breath or life-force (Gn. 2:7), which the Israelites equated–and this concept also explains why “spirit” and “breath” and “wind” are also interchangeable (ruach). In another sense, nephesh is used as a reflexive–the “self” which perhaps is something like consciousness, but I don’t think bears much of any resemblance to the dualistic, Platonic notion of soul that most Christians ascribe to.

I think the Son of Man in Daniel 7 fits the bill, as do passages like Genesis 32. A good book (by an orthodox Jewish scholar) showing that the incarnation is NOT foreign to the Jewish perspective is Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ.

My understanding of Catholicism is that it’s not that comfortable with dualism. We view the world through a sacramental lens, which in my opinion is far more holistic. St. Paul has to tackle an overly dualistic understanding (body inhibits the soul) with some of the Greeks he encounter. (I would also argue it’s a problem we here in America face.)

You think Daniel 7 attests to the Incarnation; and I would argue from that as well, along with other instances. I don’t think all Jews would agree. I think it’s more explicit with hindsight.

Regarding the concept of soul in the OT, in 2 Maccabees 7 there’s the inspiring story of the woman with seven sons, and evidence of a strong hope in resurrection. In 2 Maccabees 12, Judas’ men pray for their fellows who had died wearing idolatrous amulets. What good is that kind of prayer if they don’t believe in some kind of animating soul or hope in some kind of resurrection?

Also, the Sadducees rejected resurrection. Jesus shows them from the Pentateuch (the only Scriptures they considered canonical) that in the Theophany of the burning bush, God says “I AM the God of Abraham and Isaac,” indicating, somehow, a continuity of those two men’s lives.

In other words, I don’t think we can just say there’s no concept of soul in the OT, though it may not have been defined dogmatically or as developed as our understanding. Maybe I’m arguing from a more general sense, and you a more specific sense. I apologize if we’re rehashing stuff already pounded out earlier in the thread.

Certainly not in the Platonic or Cartesian dualistic sense. I do think humans have consciousness/minds.

Well, great!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

My understanding of Catholicism is that it’s not that comfortable with dualism. We view the world through a sacramental lens, which in my opinion is far more holistic. St. Paul has to tackle an overly dualistic understanding (body inhibits the soul) with some of the Greeks he encounter. (I would also argue it’s a problem we here in America face.)

You think Daniel 7 attests to the Incarnation; and I would argue from that as well, along with other instances. I don’t think all Jews would agree. I think it’s more explicit with hindsight.

Regarding the concept of soul in the OT, in 2 Maccabees 7 there’s the inspiring story of the woman with seven sons, and evidence of a strong hope in resurrection. In 2 Maccabees 12, Judas’ men pray for their fellows who had died wearing idolatrous amulets. What good is that kind of prayer if they don’t believe in some kind of animating soul or hope in some kind of resurrection?

Also, the Sadducees rejected resurrection. Jesus shows them from the Pentateuch (the only Scriptures they considered canonical) that in the Theophany of the burning bush, God says “I AM the God of Abraham and Isaac,” indicating, somehow, a continuity of those two men’s lives.

In other words, I don’t think we can just say there’s no concept of soul in the OT, though it may not have been defined dogmatically or as developed as our understanding. Maybe I’m arguing from a more general sense, and you a more specific sense. I apologize if we’re rehashing stuff already pounded out earlier in the thread.

Well, great!

Great answer, very informative.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

They’re not in chronological order.

“God He created him; male and female He created them.”

This phrase is know as a “parallel” in Hebrew indicating that both would have God’s image. As for the two creation accounts one must do a composite of them, not a separating of them in their thinking.

For example, we are told in one Gospel that it was a thief next to Jesus on the cross, the same man is refereed to as a robber in another gospel. Both are correct and are referring to the same person because a robber is in fact a thief.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Neither is there. The concept (at least as it’s understood within Christianity) comes from Platonic/neo-Platonic dualism and is pretty foreign to Israelite religion.

Jubilees 23:31 And their bones shall rest in the earth, And their spirits shall have much joy, And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment, And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Jubilees 23:31 And their bones shall rest in the earth, And their spirits shall have much joy, And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment, And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him.

Not O.T. unless you are Ethiopian Orthodox.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Not O.T. unless you are Ethiopian Orthodox.

That quote represents what some Jewish people believed in that time frame.
It was quoted as a historical source.

Isaiah 14

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That quote represents what some Jewish people believed in that time frame.
It was quoted as a historical source.

Yes, certainly–but this is well into the Greek era where Greek philosophy (and ideas about the soul and supernatural world which I was speaking about earlier) had permeated Israelite religion. Philo, for example, is a Jew writing at roughly the same time and is thoroughly steeped in Greek philosophy. The later the sources, the more Greek they become and the more you find ideas that resemble the Christian construction of the immortal soul.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That quote represents what some Jewish people believed in that time frame.
It was quoted as a historical source.

Isaiah 14

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

Hebrew sheol does not equate to Christian conception of hell (14:9). It’s the same technique at play here as with “soul”; retrojecting much later Christian ideas back onto older biblical texts.

 

[TCEL]

Hebrew sheol does not equate to Christian conception of hell (14:9). It’s the same technique at play here as with “soul”; retrojecting much later Christian ideas back onto older biblical texts.

Jews argue the same about the Incarnation. I’m a bit puzzled that you, a Christian, are phrasing the soul a “Christian construct.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Jews argue the same about the Incarnation. I’m a bit puzzled that you, a Christian, are phrasing the soul a “Christian construct.”

I would go even farther and say that it’s a Platonic/Neoplatonic construct that was later incorporated into Judaism after 333 BC, and thus later became part and parcel of Christian belief—at least within the bounds of the former Roman Empire.

To my knowledge, there’s nothing in the Creed that mandates belief in a Greek/Platonic understanding of the soul.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Hebrew sheol does not equate to Christian conception of hell (14:9). It’s the same technique at play here as with “soul”; retrojecting much later Christian ideas back onto older biblical texts.

and, yet they are awake.

Remember, Jesus opened up the scriptures to the apostles, thus reading back is not a problem for those following the “traditions” or teachings of the apostles themselves.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

I would go even farther and say that it’s a **Platonic/Neoplatonic construct **that was later incorporated into Judaism after 333 BC, and thus later became part and parcel of Christian belief—at least within the bounds of the former Roman Empire.

To my knowledge, there’s nothing in the Creed that mandates belief in a Greek/Platonic understanding of the soul.

Please, define those terms. I wonder if we are even on the same page.

 

[TCEL]

I would go even farther and say that it’s a Platonic/Neoplatonic construct that was later incorporated into Judaism after 333 BC, and thus later became part and parcel of Christian belief—at least within the bounds of the former Roman Empire.

To my knowledge, there’s nothing in the Creed that mandates belief in a Greek/Platonic understanding of the soul.

Thanks for clarification. So, what I’m understanding is that you think the Platonic understanding of the soul is incorrect? Is it fair to say, though, that you don’t think the idea of a soul is a construct? If so, can you elaborate?

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

I am curious about this topic too.,

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Dave you have not proved your claims, in fact I am not sure if you have even defined them. You have not shown for example, who influenced who, what relationships did they have to each other?

From the Catholic position, they in the past have shown that Jesus taught the disciples, who in turn taught some of the church fathers — a chain of evidence.

It is this chain of evidence that is missing from your claims.

Just because two people believes the same thing, does not prove they conspired with each other.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave you have not proved your claims, in fact I am not sure if you have even defined them. You have not shown for example, who influenced who, what relationships did they have to each other?

From the Catholic position, they in the past have shown that Jesus taught the disciples, who in turn taught some of the church fathers — a chain of evidence.

It is this chain of evidence that is missing from your claims.

Just because two people believes the same thing, does not prove they conspired with each other.

From my perspective, it’s the “chain of evidence” that’s lacking in popular Christian conception. To me, there are two significant disconnects: the first being between the conception of the afterlife in pre-333 BC Israelite religion and the New Testament, and the second being between the New Testament and the popular understanding of the soul and afterlife.

It’s difficult to explain Platonism concisely, but basically Platonists see two worlds: the material world and the world of invisible ideal forms. The material world is changeable, corrupt and deteriorating, but the world of ideal forms is perfect and eternal. The soul is that which belongs to the world of ideal forms and through which one can transcend the material body and with it, the material world. At the end of life, one’s soul returns to God.

The way “soul” is understood in the New Testament (say in 1Peter or Revelation) to me is drastically different from nephesh in the Old. So one naturally asks, why the shift in understanding? Given the strong influence that Greek culture had on early Judaism (again see Philo), this seems to be the most likely candidate.

The popular Christian understanding of the soul is that the human being is conceived, becomes invisibly “ensouled” at some point, that the soul is eternal, that at the point of death one’s soul goes to heaven or hell (or I guess purgatory), and that one day the soul will be reunited with a resurrected body. Dualistic divisions between body and soul are strictly maintained.

To me the New Testament doesn’t spell out these ideas very specifically at all, at least not specifically enough to derive concrete doctrines about them. So again, naturally one asks where the ideas come from, and it seems that the most likely candidate would be Greek philosophy, since a significant chunk of the early Church operated within Greek culture and the ideas are relatively similar.

One could pose a similar type of question about the notions of demons or Satan for that matter–virtually absent from the OT, but appear everywhere in the New.