Human souls MUST be immortal?

[SetInMotion]

Hebrews 4:12 is very clear on the matter.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Hebrews 4:12 is chiastic, and defines itself:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[A1.] For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
[A2.] piercing even to the dividing asunder
[B1.] of soul
[C1.] and spirit,
[B2.] and of the joints and marrow
[C2.] and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

“soul” is directly parallel to “of the joints and marrow”, while
“spirit” is directly parallel to “of the thoughts and intents of the heart”

This is exactly how the Holy Scriptures defined “living soul” in Genesis 2:7.

The ‘dead/lifeless’ “soul” was breathed into by God’s Spirit, and then “became” a “living soul (person/being/creature)”. See also Psalms 84:2; 1 Cor. 15:45.

This is how the Holy Scriptures defined “soul” elsewhere, as noted, even among the beasts. The very “soul … of the beeves (cattle)”, etc. See also Rev. 16:3.

Notice how in the OT, the word is used:

Gen_12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

That verse just told us, that the “soul” is not immortal. The “living soul” is the entire alive physical entity, that is breathing, by God’s grace.

Lev_5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

 

[SetInMotion]

Body is -
flesh to return to Dust

Again, notice what the Holy Scriptures declare, by the Holy Spirit’s inspriation:

Psa 146:4 DRB His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish.

Psa_146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

It says, “he” “returneth to his earth”, and even their “thoughts” perish.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[SetInMotion]

This was the actual argument without my butchering it from earlier (it’s C.S Lewis)

Thank you, I have read much of C. S. Lewis, and I must say, I do not care for his theology (I think he has quite a bit in error) all that much, or his fiction.

 

[FredBloggs]

Taking this in steps,

the purpose of both quotes I used (Josephus and Corinthians) was to show the immortality of the soul.

Then it fails in that endeavour as it’s based on hearsay.

You identify yourself with only an emoji and no further description. Any comment on who you are?

FredBoggs:

What would you like to know?

Faith…Yes / NO ?

Does your Belief system have a name?

I guess it would be humanism, if you were to draw a comparison between religious and irreligious worldviews.

I don’t think I have faith as such, I have confidence in things that have proven to be trustworthy. One definition of “faith” is “belief without evidence,” I don’t think that’s a rational position to take. (To be clear, I’m not trying to cherry-pick that definition to make a point, it’s just the one that springs to mind.)

 

[steve-b]

Taking this in steps,

the purpose of both quotes I used (Josephus and Corinthians) was to show the immortality of the soul.

FredBloggs:

Then it fails in that endeavour as it’s based on hearsay .

on the contrary

hearsay ≠ eyewitness

steve-b:

Does your Belief system have a name?

FredBoggs:

I guess it would be humanism, if you were to draw a comparison between religious and irreligious worldviews.

I don’t think I have faith as such, I have confidence in things that have proven to be trustworthy. One definition of “faith” is “belief without evidence,” I don’t think that’s a rational position to take. (To be clear, I’m not trying to cherry-pick that definition to make a point, it’s just the one that springs to mind.)

Definitions sometimes get screwed up when passed on.

Maybe you’re thinking of

Heb 11
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old received divine approval. 3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. "

Also

Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible & receives the impossible! (author unknown)

 

[FredBloggs]

on the contrary

hearsay ≠ eyewitness

Quite. And you’ll note that Josephus did NOT say, “I saw him come back to life.” So as I said, this is hearsay. It’s not reliable testimony. It’s not eye witness.

Definitions sometimes get screwed up when passed on.

Maybe you’re thinking of

Heb 11
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old received divine approval. 3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. "

Also

Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible & receives the impossible! (author unknown)

If you couch all your definitions in scripture rather than by colloquial use or dictionary definition, then you and I have no platform from which to continue the debate. You’re effectively saying, “you have to adopt my worldview before we can continue.”

As it happens, I don’t disagree with the first of the verses you quote: “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Wishful thinking, in other words.

 

[Gorgias]

But the point remains: really really wanting something is not a valid reason to believe that it must exist.

Sure, but I think that the “point” you’re arguing is a different one than what had been asserted. It’s not “if I want it, then it must exist”; the point is more nuanced than that. The assertion is that if there is a craving (by body or soul) for some thing, then how else would the body or soul know to crave it if it wasn’t in the nature of that body or soul to crave it? Note the difference: the assertion is not talking about something that your imagination might come up with on its own; it’s talking about some deep, subconscious craving for a need.

That’s an interesting assertion, and it doesn’t reflect well to lampoon it simply as “if I want it, it must exist.”

 

[Gorgias]

The bible tells a lot of things that are provably untrue

The Bible is a collection of books with a variety of genres. One hopes you’re not looking at poetry or figurative narrative and exclaiming, “a-HA! Provably untrue!”, since that would be as silly as looking at Barney the Purple Dinosaur and claiming “a-HA! Untrue!”…

it is self-contradictory

Many have attempted to make that claim, and failed. It would be interesting to see you give your best single shot at demonstrating your claim…

the events it purports to relate occurred oftentimes centuries before they were written down.

Immaterial. In the times of illiterate cultures, history was told and re-told orally… and accurately.

The notion that the facts of these events, told and re-told, were not embellished or altered in any way is, frankly, ludicrous.

The question is: did they retain the truth they were attempting to convey? If the language changed in the retelling, that does not imply that the truth value decayed.

And you’ll note that Josephus did NOT say, “I saw him come back to life.” So as I said, this is hearsay. It’s not reliable testimony. It’s not eye witness.

And you’ll note that Josephus was a historian. So, he was engaging in the project of his vocation: reporting history.

 

[steve-b]

on the contrary

hearsay ≠ eyewitness

FredBoggs:

Quite. And you’ll note that Josephus did NOT say, “I saw him come back to life.” So as I said, this is hearsay. It’s not reliable testimony. It’s not eye witness.

Yet Josephus was reporting a historical event. The crucifixion and death of Jesus. Then he writes about the eyewitnesses recount of Jesus rise from the dead " Then appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.**" IOW Eye witnesses passed on that information. AND considering Jesus didn’t ascend back to heaven till 40 days after His resurrection from the dead, lots of people saw Him in person, alive again.

steve-b:

Definitions sometimes get screwed up when passed on.

Maybe you’re thinking of

Heb 11
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old received divine approval. 3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. "

Also

Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible & receives the impossible! (author unknown)

FredBoggs:

If you couch all your definitions in scripture rather than by colloquial use or dictionary definition, then you and I have no platform from which to continue the debate. You’re effectively saying, “you have to adopt my worldview before we can continue.”

As it happens, I don’t disagree with the first of the verses you quote: “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Wishful thinking, in other words.

No… assurance and conviction, is not wishful thinking.

 

[FredBloggs]

Sure, but I think that the “point” you’re arguing is a different one than what had been asserted. It’s not “if I want it, then it must exist”; the point is more nuanced than that. The assertion is that if there is a craving (by body or soul) for some thing, then how else would the body or soul know to crave it if it wasn’t in the nature of that body or soul to crave it? Note the difference: the assertion is not talking about something that your imagination might come up with on its own; it’s talking about some deep, subconscious craving for a need.

Then the whole argument is begging the question. It assumes that (a) there’s a soul, and (b) that the “craving” for eternal life is “deep” and “subconscious.”

That’s an interesting assertion, and it doesn’t reflect well to lampoon it simply as “if I want it, it must exist.”

Well, I wasn’t intentionally “lampooning,” I just think the logic is ridiculous. It starts with a dogmatic presupposition - that there is eternal life - and then goes about trying to rationalise that position and then asserting that it must be true. And the “rationalisation” is to equate it with the body’s need for food.

 

[FredBloggs]

The Bible is a collection of books with a variety of genres. One hopes you’re not looking at poetry or figurative narrative and exclaiming, “a-HA! Provably untrue!”, since that would be as silly as looking at Barney the Purple Dinosaur and claiming “a-HA! Untrue!”…

No, I’m looking at a book which Christians claim was written by God himself and which they hold up as erm, the gospel, and seeing that many of the truth claims it makes have been disproven, and most of the others are, as yet, unproven one way or the other. It is not a reliable source of information.

Many have attempted to make that claim, and failed. It would be interesting to see you give your best single shot at demonstrating your claim…

Well actually, they’ve succeeded. A simple Google search will demonstrate that.

Immaterial. In the times of illiterate cultures, history was told and re-told orally… and accurately .

“…and accurately” is an assertion which contradicts what we know about human story-telling. We know that stories of wonder are embellished with each re-telling, even over a few months. We’re talking centuries here. Unless you’re now claiming that humans have lost the ability to retain perfect accuracy throughout multiple iterations of a story (a claim you would have to evidence) then you’re just saying, “it’s true, because I say so.”

The question is: did they retain the truth they were attempting to convey? If the language changed in the retelling, that does not imply that the truth value decayed.

And again, we know from evidence-based experiments that accuracy (and therefore truth) is not immutable when a story is told and re-told - especially when the events being portrayed are miraculous.

And you’ll note that Josephus was a historian. So, he was engaging in the project of his vocation: reporting history.

Yep, and he was reporting what he was told by others. If you really assume that people had perfect recollection of events and were able to pass that down verbatim through multiple generations of campfire story-telling, then you’re abandoning rational and enquiring thought if favour of a dogmatic belief in what you wish were true.

 

[FredBloggs]

Yet Josephus was reporting a historical event. The crucifixion and death of Jesus. Then he writes about the eyewitnesses recount of Jesus rise from the dead " Then appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.**" IOW Eye witnesses passed on that information. AND considering Jesus didn’t ascend back to heaven till 40 days after His resurrection from the dead, lots of people saw Him in person, alive again.

Responded to in my post to Gorgias. You can’t just say “It’s not hearsay because someone says that loads of people saw it”

Hearsay. Hear, say. Literally what it means. People hear something then say it to other people. Proven to lose its fundamental underlying message within a few retellings.

And “eye witness” statements have, again, been proven to be incredibly unreliable.

No… assurance and conviction, is not wishful thinking.

Well they’re not mutually exclusive. You can feel assured and convinced by something, but that doesn’t have any bearing on its truth. However, again experiments have shown that people are likely to be convinced by something on very sparse “evidence,” if it’s something they want to be true.

To take the example above. Hearsay and eye witness evidence is not reliable. Demonstrably not reliable. Yet you’re happy to take this hundreds-of-times retold story of incredible, miraculous events at face value. Tell me, what would convince you that it’s not true?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

No… assurance and conviction, is not wishful thinking.

FredBloggs:

You can feel assured and convinced by something, but that doesn’t have any bearing on its truth. However, again experiments have shown that people are likely to be convinced by something on very sparse “evidence,” if it’s something they want to be true.

To take the example above. Hearsay and eye witness evidence is not reliable. Demonstrably not reliable. Yet you’re happy to take this hundreds-of-times retold story of incredible, miraculous events at face value. Tell me, what would convince you that it’s not true?

Yet As​

St Paul argued 1 Corinthians 15:13-23

&​

Jesus argued Jn 6:53-58,66

Note: even God the Son, couldn’t convince those called His “disciples” , because as you continue reading in this chapter (v 66), they had no faith. Not even Jesus teaching them face to face, and them seeing His miracles, would they believe… And they walked away from Him saying who could listen to this stuff. (paraphrased ) And Jesus didn’t go after them. Free Will ya know. It’s part of how God made us. He wants us to make choices, use our intellects and reason. It’s what makes us culpable in the end for what we do

So​

I had a friend I knew through business. He was an atheist. What was interesting, he was the one who always wanted to get into a God talk. For awhile I accommodated . Seeing we were getting nowhere, I used the paschal wager argument. Paraphrased, I said

Believe what you want . If you’re right and I’m wrong, then no harm no foul. We’re just dead in the end. No consequences, no benefits, or punishment, we’re just dead. But if I’m right and you’re wrong, you’re screwed for eternity. Then I put a hypothesis in front of him. I said, take all that you own, your entire net worth down to the cash you’re carrying now, have it notarized, and go to the caseno of your choice , convert your net worth to poker chips, and bet away. To which he responded, that’s a stupid bet. To which I responded, WHY? You could win big time. He still said it’s a stupid bet. Again I said WHY? I asked What is it about that example that is soooooooooo clear to you but God being there is NOT clear? Why is THAT bet I describe so complicated?

 

[FredBloggs]

Yet As​

St Paul argued 1 Corinthians 15:13-23

&​

Jesus argued Jn 6:53-58,66

Note: even God the Son, couldn’t convince those called His “disciples” , because as you continue reading in this chapter (v 66), they had no faith . Not even Jesus teaching them face to face, and them seeing His miracles, would they believe… And they walked away from Him saying who could listen to this stuff. (paraphrased ) And Jesus didn’t go after them. Free Will ya know. It’s part of how God made us. He wants us to make choices, use our intellects and reason. It’s what makes us culpable in the end for what we do

So you’re using the bible as a way of disputing the hearsay explanation? Sorry, I mean no offence, but that’s hilarious.

You also seem to be saying that you need faith to have belief, which is kind of obvious, but doesn’t actually support the fundamental truth claims of religion.

The whole conversation about free will would derail this thread so I won’t get into that here. Suffice to say that “free will” is not an indicator of the existence of God, immortal souls, or any of the other propositions asserted by theists.

So​

I had a friend I knew through business. He was an atheist. What was interesting, he was the one who always wanted to get into a God talk. For awhile I accommodated . Seeing we were getting nowhere, I used the paschal wager argument. Paraphrased, I said

Believe what you want . If you’re right and I’m wrong, then no harm no foul. We’re just dead in the end. No consequences, no benefits, or punishment, we’re just dead. But if I’m right and you’re wrong, you’re screwed for eternity. Then I put a hypothesis in front of him. I said, take all that you own, your entire net worth down to the cash you’re carrying now, have it notarized, and go to the caseno of your choice , convert your net worth to poker chips, and bet away. To which he responded, that’s a stupid bet. To which I responded, WHY? You could win big time. He still said it’s a stupid bet. Again I said WHY? I asked What is it about that example that is soooooooooo clear to you but God being there is NOT clear? Why is THAT bet I describe so complicated?

You do realise that Pascal’s Wager was satire, right? One can’t simply choose to believe something nonsensical just because it might, just might be true. I’m pretty sure that Blaise Pascal was smart enough to realise that. If you follow the idea to its natural conclusion, you should also choose to believe in Allah, Brahma and his brethren, Zeus… the list goes on. Because, y’know, you can’t be too careful

 

[steve-b]

Yet As​

St Paul argued 1 Corinthians 15:13-23

&​

Jesus argued Jn 6:53-58,66 discussing the Eucharist

Note: even God the Son, couldn’t convince those called His “disciples” , because as you continue reading in this chapter (v 66), they had no faith . Not even Jesus teaching them face to face, and them seeing His miracles, would they believe… And they walked away from Him saying who could listen to this stuff. (paraphrased ) And Jesus didn’t go after them. Free Will ya know. It’s part of how God made us. He wants us to make choices, use our intellects and reason. It’s what makes us culpable in the end for what we do

FredBloggs:

So you’re using the bible as a way of disputing the hearsay explanation? Sorry, I mean no offence, but that’s hilarious.

You also seem to be saying that you need faith to have belief, which is kind of obvious, but doesn’t actually support the fundamental truth claims of religion.

The whole conversation about free will would derail this thread so I won’t get into that here. Suffice to say that “free will” is not an indicator of the existence of God, immortal souls, or any of the other propositions asserted by theists.

That’s your response? Just one big denial?

FredBloggs:

You do realise that Pascal’s Wager was satire, right? One can’t simply choose to believe something nonsensical just because it might, just might be true. I’m pretty sure that Blaise Pascal was smart enough to realise that. If you follow the idea to its natural conclusion, you should also choose to believe in Allah, Brahma and his brethren, Zeus… the list goes on. Because, y’know, you can’t be too careful

Again, that’s your response? One denial after another?

Stay where you are and take your chances.

 

[FredBloggs]

That’s your response? Just one big denial?

You call it denial. I call it pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument.

If you’re going to denigrate anything other than an enthusiastic acceptance of your position as mere “denial” then it’s clear you’re not open to an actual discussion of the points.

Again, that’s your response? One denial after another?

It seems so, by your arrogantly narrow-minded yardstick.

Stay where you are and take your chances.

Righty-ho. Far more respectable to have honest and justifiable disbelief than to pretend to believe in something preposterous just because if it turns out to be true I avoid punishment by a capricious (and clearly very gullible) deity.

 

[steve-b]

[snip]

Righty-ho. Far more respectable to have honest and justifiable disbelief than to pretend to believe in something preposterous just because if it turns out to be true I avoid punishment by a capricious (and clearly very gullible) deity.

You have said absolutely nothing here on your response. No proof of anything, Just denial after denial.

 

[FredBloggs]

You have said absolutely nothing here on your response. No proof of anything, Just denial after denial.

If it helps you to think that in order to believe that you’ve presented a valid argument, so be it. You clearly don’t understand the nature of rebuttal. I don’t have to prove your assertions wrong, I just have to show that they’re extremely unlikely to be right. I’ve done that, but you don’t accept it. Dogmatic, rather than rational, belief, does that to people. It is you who are in denial, my friend.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet Josephus was reporting a historical event. The crucifixion and death of Jesus. Then he writes about the eyewitnesses recount of Jesus rise from the dead " Then appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.**"

Hmm… isn’t that the part that scholars believe was a later addition to the text (i.e., a corruption of the original)?

Then the whole argument is begging the question.

No; that argument wasn’t asking “is there a soul?”, but rather “is there heaven?”.

So, you might ask whether that approach is appropriate as evidence to answer the question “does the soul exist?”, but not whether, in its own context, it make sense.

Well, I wasn’t intentionally “lampooning,”

Umm… riiiiiiiiiight.

It starts with a dogmatic presupposition - that there is eternal life - and then goes about trying to rationalise that position and then asserting that it must be true.

I don’t know. If the body – not the imagination – craves something, what does that tell you?

 

[Gorgias]

punishment by a capricious (and clearly very gullible) deity

LOL!

So… I can see you have an open mind on the issue, eh?