The Bible Does Not Say We Have An Immortal Soul

[MadNotAngry]

Isn’t that amazing?

Watched a debate where an Atheist insisted to a holy man: “… at least admit the Bible does not claim you have an immortal soul”, and after some stuttering, the man wearing a cross said that was true.

Somehow missed this detail so turned to Google and discovered it is a fact. The Bible makes it especially confusing, using words like ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ to mean essentially the same thing, but neither mean any sort of being that survives death, heading for heaven or hell, or judgement, or whatever.

In fact, further research shows the first few centuries of your religion were full controversy as you all tried to make sense of it all. Wasn’t till like 400 years after Christ’s death that Augustine came with the concept you all now embrace as ‘gospel’.

Found this too interesting to keep to myself. Never knew. So, wondering, does the Catholic church of today teach their flock the reality of how this idea came about?

 

[Darryl_B]

Isn’t that amazing?

Watched a debate where an Atheist insisted to a holy man: “… at least admit the Bible does not claim you have an immortal soul”, and after some stuttering, the man wearing a cross said that was true.

Somehow missed this detail so turned to Google and discovered it is a fact. The Bible makes it especially confusing, using words like ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ to mean essentially the same thing, but neither mean any sort of being that survives death, heading for heaven or hell, or judgement, or whatever.

In fact, further research shows the first few centuries of your religion were full controversy as you all tried to make sense of it all. Wasn’t till like 400 years after Christ’s death that Augustine came with the concept you all now embrace as ‘gospel’.

Found this too interesting to keep to myself. Never knew. So, wondering, does the Catholic church of today teach their flock the reality of how this idea came about?

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28.

So when a body is killed, the soul isn’t.

For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. Acts 2:27. Citing Psalm 16:10.

As it says later his flesh did not see corruption (physical decay), and his soul was not abandoned to Hades, but instead both body and soul were resurrected. Acts 2:31.

 

[mikeeh]

 

[MadNotAngry]

Yes, I know, as a Christian, you think if you keep tossing out verses from your holy book, it will all become manifest to me. Already know there are many references to ‘souls’ in the Bible, was trying to encourage you to look outside of your singular point of view and see what better minds than yours or mind have conceived.

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28.

So when a body is killed, the soul isn’t.

Here is what I found (you know, part of that “Seek and ye shall find” directive):

The word “soul” is not the best translation of the original Hebrew and Greek terms. In the Bible the “soul” is not immortal and cannot exist independent of the physical body. From the point of view of biblical anthropology (the study of human nature), the term “soul” expresses two main ideas. First, humans are by nature creatures of desires and ongings. Second, humans are living beings who eagerly seek to live but are unable to acquire or preserve life by themselves. “Soul” refers to the whole person in need of God, who is the only one who can preserve a human being or extinguish the self forever (Matt. 10:28). Therefore, nephesh/psuche refers to the totality of the person as a center of life, emotions, feelings, and longings that can be fully realized only in union with God.

Like I said; fascinating, for those dare to look.

 

[Nelka]

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28.

So when a body is killed, the soul isn’t.

 

[dmelosi]

Yes, I know, as a Christian, you think if you keep tossing out verses from your holy book, it will all become manifest to me. Already know there are many references to ‘souls’ in the Bible, was trying to encourage you to look outside of your singular point of view and see what better minds than yours or mind have conceived.

Here is what I found (you know, part of that “Seek and ye shall find” directive):

The word “soul” is not the best translation of the original Hebrew and Greek terms. In the Bible the “soul” is not immortal and cannot exist independent of the physical body. From the point of view of biblical anthropology (the study of human nature), the term “soul” expresses two main ideas. First, humans are by nature creatures of desires and ongings. Second, humans are living beings who eagerly seek to live but are unable to acquire or preserve life by themselves. “Soul” refers to the whole person in need of God, who is the only one who can preserve a human being or extinguish the self forever (Matt. 10:28). Therefore, nephesh/psuche refers to the totality of the person as a center of life, emotions, feelings, and longings that can be fully realized only in union with God.

Like I said; fascinating, for those dare to look.

I did a search to see where you come up with this quote. It came from a Seventh Day Advent site and you only copied a small portion of what it was talking about.

You left out " The Hebrew term nephesh in the Old Testament and the Greek psuche in the New Testament are sometimes translated “soul,” but they both mean “life, person.” The different uses of those two words help us to obtain a better understanding of the biblical view of human nature. ’

You accuse us on here of “daring” to look. To gain any credility, you need to not pick and choose only what suits you.

 

[heidi_storage]

Yes, I know, as a Christian, you think if you keep tossing out verses from your holy book, it will all become manifest to me. Already know there are many references to ‘souls’ in the Bible, was trying to encourage you to look outside of your singular point of view and see what better minds than yours or mind have

Like I said; fascinating, for those dare to look.

We do believe what our holy book says, yes. May the grace of God touch you and open your eyes to Him. May you be drawn to Him in love, as he has first loved you.

 

[Byzman]

Isn’t that amazing?

Watched a debate where an Atheist insisted to a holy man: “… at least admit the Bible does not claim you have an immortal soul”, and after some stuttering, the man wearing a cross said that was true.

Somehow missed this detail so turned to Google and discovered it is a fact. The Bible makes it especially confusing, using words like ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ to mean essentially the same thing, but neither mean any sort of being that survives death, heading for heaven or hell, or judgement, or whatever.

In fact, further research shows the first few centuries of your religion were full controversy as you all tried to make sense of it all. Wasn’t till like 400 years after Christ’s death that Augustine came with the concept you all now embrace as ‘gospel’.

Found this too interesting to keep to myself. Never knew. So, wondering, does the Catholic church of today teach their flock the reality of how this idea came about?

The Book of Wisdom is full of the concept of the immortality of the soul…look through the book for yourself.

Wisdom 3:1-4

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.

 

[JackieO123]

I find it funny how some atheists claim that they know our own religion better than we do. It’s a riot.

 

[Byzman]

I find it funny how some atheists claim that they know our own religion better than we do. It’s a riot.

Lol!

 

[josh987654321]

.

I am a little confused as to why you title a thread ‘The Bible Does Not Say We Have An Immortal Soul’ and than get upset with poster Darryl B for quoting the Bible in order to show that it does say that we have an immortal soul.

Watched a debate where an Atheist insisted to a holy man: “… at least admit the Bible does not claim you have an immortal soul”, and after some stuttering, the man wearing a cross said that was true.

Would you be able to provide me with a link to this debate please?

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed at all?

Actually before you answer those, May I ask why you called yourself ‘MadNotAngry’?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Loving_disciple]

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.

Also when it says in the gospel how Jesus preached the gospel to the dead that implies a life after death

 

[patrick457]

I hate to be pedantic, but, does the Bible need to explicitly contain every doctrine Christians believe in within its pages? Yes, I know there are some Christians who may believe that, but Catholics are not really those ‘some Christians’. You won’t find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible, nor a detailed explanation of the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. You won’t find any definition of the two persons of Jesus or the Hypostatic Union from any biblical book - educated Catholics know that. This is why I really feel that ‘The Bible doesn’t say…’ arguments don’t work well when you’re speaking with Catholics, or anyone who does not hold the belief of sola Scriptura (or at least, a hard-line interpretation of it anyway), because we Catholics would simply say ‘Well, not everything needs to be spelled out explicitly in the Bible.’

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I find it funny how some atheists claim that they know our own religion better than we do. It’s a riot.

Op, the amount of arrogance pouring from your post is palpable. Perhaps, before simply believing your views to be superior, you should do real research, beyond a simple Google search.

While the Bible does not explicitly use the words “Immortal Soul,” it alludes to the undying nature of the soul on several occasions, most frequently when discussing the justice which is received upon death from God. Other posters have already given example of this, so I won’t bother to as well. The argument that you began here is that the Bible does not suggest the existence of the immortal soul, this is a false argument, as we have already shown.

If you’d like to debate the -actual- existence of the immortal soul, beyond the bounds of the Bible, I’m sure there are many here who’d love to discuss it with you.

As for you assertion that the Church was in disarray for the first 40 years, you are sadly mistaken. There were detractors and heretics, as always, but the Church remained a fairly unified body. This unity, this shared core of belief, and the moral basis for society that the Church put forward is what allowed it to spread in spite of intermittent persecutions, and being forced to be an “underground” faith. This reality is readily apparent in areas of the world where the faith is persecuted and prevented from doing its missionary work, such as China where, despite harsh government sanctions against it, an underground church of faithful Catholic is growing. The event you’re speaking about was only the -official- ratification of the Bible as it is now. The books which now comprise the Bible had already been in use long before that date, some of them for roughly 200+ years. Do not conflate an official declaration with a sudden and random shift or development.

Stick around here, you might learn a bit. God Bless!

 

[St_Redemption]

Yes, I know, as a Christian, you think if you keep tossing out verses from your holy book, it will all become manifest to me. Already know there are many references to ‘souls’ in the Bible, was trying to encourage you to look outside of your singular point of view and see what better minds than yours or mind have conceived.

Here is what I found (you know, part of that “Seek and ye shall find” directive):

The word “soul” is not the best translation of the original Hebrew and Greek terms. In the Bible the “soul” is not immortal and cannot exist independent of the physical body. From the point of view of biblical anthropology (the study of human nature), the term “soul” expresses two main ideas. First, humans are by nature creatures of desires and ongings.Second, humans are living beings who eagerly seek to live but are unable to acquire or preserve life by themselves. “Soul” refers to the whole person in need of God, who is the only one who can preserve a human being or extinguish the self forever (Matt. 10:28). Therefore, nephesh/psuche refers to the totality of the person as a center of life, emotions, feelings, and longings that can be fully realized only in union with God.

Like I said; fascinating, for those dare to look.

Do you always speak to others in a condescending manner? Or just on the internet?
You speak about “better minds.” If having a “better mind” means that one is ignorant enough to make absurd claims about a book that clearly demonstratably false, then Ill take my chances not being somebody with a “a better mind.”

As somebody else had pointed out, it is beyond absurd to state that the Bible does not claim that we have an immortal soul and then reply in disdainful patronizing manner because somebody uses the Bible to prove you wrong.

Here are a few. I can find a dozen more for you if you’d like.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 316
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Romans 26-8
He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Mathew 25:4
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m in the middle of reading the book “Analogy of Religion” written in 1736 by Joseph Butler an Anglican bishop. [Printing and the Mind of Man, #193. Grolier 100 (English Literature) #44] In the very first chapter he goes into Eternal Life. He proves from probability that Eternal Life can be inferred from an analogy to Nature, but that there is NO probable cause to argue in favor of the destruction of the “living agent” as he calls it by death.

Eg. Even by today’s standards of scientific knowledge, The “living agent” can not be “re-installed” into a dead body and made to live again. There is NO possibility of bringing a body back to life which has been thoroughly dead. Not counting near death episodes, which prove that the “living agent” had never really left the body.

This proves that there is SOMETHING which we can call a living agent. When it is present, the body can live, but when it is absent, the body can not live. This is that same Living Agent that Butler claims can not be argued, based on anything we actually know, to have been destroyed by death, and in fact, there is much more probability, based on an analogy to nature, that the living agent continues. (He also claims this for animals, and all living beings)

So even WITHOUT the Bible, and Atheist is a fool and a shallow thinker to suppose that there is ANY evidence whatsoever that the living agent is destroyed by death. He is presuming based on our weak and limited knowledge of death. Much like the fabled equatorial king presuming that water could never be solid.

 

[agnes_therese]

Yes, I know, as a Christian, you think if you keep tossing out verses from your holy book, it will all become manifest to me.

So, when you claim “the Bible does not say . . .” responding with quotes from that same Bible are not allowed?

 

[captainrick]

Hope the OP grows up enough to find another hobby besides posting arrogant challenges and mocking other peoples’ religions. If you’re an atheist, fine. So what. Just be happy as you are, no need to troll a catholic site trying to stir up arguments.

 

[Zachary]

… was trying to encourage you to look outside of your singular point of view and see what better minds than yours or mind have conceived.

This hardly qualifies as:

… Hiya. Call me Mad. Here to enter into respectful dialog with Christians on questions of faith, life, nature, and God. Look forward to meeting you soon!

Ok; you’re mad. What, exactly are you mad about?

I encourage you to look inside the narrow perspective that Catholicim offers. Narrow isnt a bad thing. It simply means it is clear, direct, honest and not corrupt by a million point of “open-mindedness.”

Instead of mountain-topping your POV, why not engage in disucssion. Either you seek answers to questions you have or you’re just trolling.

 

[Sirach2]

It’s not worth it … he’s only here to taunt.