We must take this seriously and not read New Testament revelation back into the Old Testament accounts…It is generally conceived that there is little about resurrection or after-life in what the Jews called the Torah If one recognizes that death and eternal life in the New Testament are always bound up the Christ-event, then it becomes clear that for the first Christians the soul is not intrinsically immortal, but rather became so only through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The belief of Socrates and Plato was that when a soul is freed from the person it was in, that freed soul would live forever without the person that it had been imprisoned in.
It would be like making Bill be judged and punished for what John did. He said, "For some things are known even by nature, the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, 'Every soul is immortal. The Egyptians might have been the first to believe in the dual nature of a person. They believed that death was a door to a new form of life for a soul, which may be higher or lower, depending on how good or bad a person was that a soul had been in. They believed the body was evil and a prison to a soul. They built the pyramids and other tombs and put the things in them they thought would be needed by a soul after the death of the person.
Death was a friend to them that freed a soul from the evil body it was in; but it was the Greeks Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato who adopted this Egyptian belief of the dual nature of a person and father developed the philosophy of the immortal soul. Some of the church fathers were schooled in and believed in this Greek philosophy, and were only partly converted.
They, after greatly expanding on the teaching of Plato, brought the Greek philosophy into the church, which led to the apostasy in the Dark Age. Unconditional immortality is the foundation of the doctrine of Hell. If a person had an unseen immortal soul in them that would not die when the person died, there had to be a place to put the deathless evil souls after they were freed from the persons they had imprisoned been in; therefore, the doctrine of a soul going to Heaven or Hell immediately after the person died came into being without a resurrection or a judgment, and the New Testament teaching of the resurrection of the dead became unneeded and of little or no importance.
In the Greek philosophy a soul never dies; only the body dies, freeing a deathless soul from the person to live a higher life. Vine that never dies. The Greeks did not believe in or need a resurrection, or a savior, or a redeemer; these would not fit into their belief. They believed in an immortal soul; therefore, there could be no death for any soul. The Greek philosophy of an immortal soul is opposed and opposite to the teaching of Christ on the resurrection.
To Plato and Agrippa, the resurrection of the dead would have been a step backward. It would put a soul that was freed from its imprisonment in a body back into the prison it had been freed from. The Greek and heathen belief that the immortal soul is indestructible, demands that a soul cannot die, but must be alive forever somewhere. The resurrection as taught by Christ demands that a person be dead, if not, there cannot be a resurrection. The resurrection is a calling back to life of the whole person God created, not a calling back to life of a deathless something that is a difference being than the person that it had been imprisoned in.
If the Greek doctrine of an immortal soul that cannot die, which is believed by many today were true, then the resurrection of Christ and our resurrection would be pointless even if it were possible to raise a dead a soul that is not dead. Plato, A soul is immortal If there is no resurrection. Only some inter something A person who in Christ. Souls cannot be destroyed in Gehenna Matthew Plato's immortal soul and Christ's resurrection are not compatible, both cannot be.
One can be true, but not both; they are alien and complete opposite to each other. The immortal soul doctrine of Plato is a total rejection of the teaching of Christ on the resurrection of a person to life at the second coming of Christ.
- Special offers and product promotions!
- A Trip of Goats?
- Spirits of Earth: The Effigy Mound Landscape of Madison and the Four Lakes (Wisconsin Land and Life).
- For Never (Together Book 1).
- Loves Fatal Illusions - 25 Deadly Misconceptions That Destroy Love and Ruin Romance and How to Avoid Them?
To believe Plato is to reject Christ. Plato argued for an immortal, immaterial soul that was better off after the death of the person it had been imprisoned in. Paul taught the resurrection of the dead person. Paul and Plato used the same Greek words, but not in the same way. Immortal, immortality, indestructible, never dying was used by Plato, and are used by many today to describe a soul that exist after the death of the person it once was in, but in the Old or New Testament these words are never used referring to any lost person, or to anything that had been in a person.
The expression "immortal soul" is very common in the writing of the pagan philosophers and by today's preachers, but is not found in the Bible. Corruption all souls are now incorruptible. What Plato and the Greeks thought about there being a soul in a person, and that soul would exist with some kind of life when the person it was in died, is not the word of God; to those that believe the Bible, the Greek immortal soul that has some kind of life after the death of the person it had been in is not any part of the Christian faith.
Every school of philosophy took it up, whether to confirm Plato's view, or to deny it, or to heap ridicule upon it. All the phrases we have been discussing from the New Testament had been explained, turned over and over, handled with all the power of the masters of language, presented in every phase, so that of their sense there could be no doubt, nor could there be any one ignorant of their sense before Jesus spoke, or an Evangelist or Apostle wrote. The subject had not died out before the days of Christ. It never could and never will die out.
In every city of the Roman world were schools of Grecian taught in the days of the Apostles. In every school the question before us was discussed in the phrases and language of the New Testament. He cannot obtain this victory by simply living on as an immortal soul, thus fundamentally not dying.
He can conquer death only by actually dying, by betaking Himself to the sphere of death, the destroyer of life…Whoever wants to conquer death must die, he must really cease to live—not simply live on as an immortal soul…For Socrates and Plato…the body is indeed bad and should not live on. Belief in the immortality of the soul is not belief in a revolutionary event. Immortality, in fact, is only a negative assertion, the soul does not die, but simply lives on.
Resurrection is a positive assertion, the whole man, who has really died, is recalled to life…The Greek doctrine of immortality and the Christian hope in the resurrection differ so radically because Greek thought has such and entirely different interpretation of creation. Some believe that in the afterlife there will be nothing more than a collection of disembodied spirits or souls that will be just as alive and just the same from the day of birth of the persons these soul were in as these souls will be after they leave the person after the persons death.
Death and the resurrection are out of step with the belief of Plato. That there is something in a person and that something being deathless is a philosophy of man that Paul warned about Colossians 2: An immortal soul was copied from heathen philosophy and superstition. Those who believe we now have "an immortal soul" get their belief from Greek philosophy, but are inconstant and self-contradicting; they say a soul cannot die, but it needs a Savior anyway.
If we were born with an immortal soul, it would have no need for Christ to save it from the death it cannot die. Christianity did not destroy the pagan doctrine of Egypt and Greece; in the Dark Age it adopted it and made it the teaching of the Roman Church. If a soul is immortal deathless then Christ has not been raised, 1 Cor. If a soul is immortal deathless we are false witnesses, the dead have not be raised, 1 Corinthians If a soul is immortal deathless our faith is vain and we are yet in our sins, 1 Corinthians Death is the enemy 1 Corinthians It is the destruction of the life given by God.
It is not the liberator of an immortal soul, as Plato believed it to be. It is death, which must be conquered by the resurrection. When we understand that death is really death, not another kind of life for an immortal living something that has no substance that is in a person, the resurrection is all-important. Without a resurrection we can do anything that we want to do for this life is all there is 1 Corinthians Our only hope is the resurrection, and without it there will be no life of any kind for us after death.
As the farmer is patient unto the harvest to receive his reward, the believers are to be patient unto the coming of Christ to receive their reward. It is not a spiritual body that is now in a natural body that will go to Heaven at the death of the natural body. It is the day that the Lord will judge all.
Death will not take anyone to Heaven without waiting for the second coming of Jesus. Our hope is to be raised from our sleep at the coming of Christ, not come back from living in Heaven or Abraham's bosom. The teaching of Christ, that life everlasting life or immortality will be given only to those who obey Him, makes Hell impossible.
Unless Christ gives eternal life immortality to the lost, they cannot live forever anywhere. The Greek teaching of an immortal soul must be made to stand, and the teaching of Christ that He will give life only to those who come to Him must be removed from the Bible, or there cannot be a Hell. Socrates drinks hemlock and died with a smile on his face because he thought he was freeing a soul to leave his body and live with the gods, for a soul that was in him to live free of being in him. Death is the enemy of man; it destroys him, and only the resurrection will free us from death, and gives us back the life death takes.
In death there is no life in Heaven, or no life in any other place for us before the resurrection. The resurrection is not deathless souls coming back from Heaven and Hell to be judged and then going back to Heaven and Hell, it is our only hope of life after our death. As the results of the pagan immortal soul doctrine there came into existent many other false doctrines, Hellfire, Purgatory, worship of Mary and saints, etc. The Protestant Reformation was largely a reaction to medieval superstitious beliefs, and to Purgatory that is an intermediate state of temporal punishment where souls that were not good enough to go to Heaven, and not bad enough to go to Hell; in the Church in the Dark Age this was believed to be almost all souls that had left the dead persons that they had been in.
The priests would have the loved ones pay for souls to shorten the time souls that had been in the dead persons were in Purgatory. Selling indulgences and paying to reduce the time deathless souls that had left the dead loved ones would spend in Purgatory was rejected by the Reformation, as was many other beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church; but both the Greek dual nature of a person and the doctrine of Hell that were brought in by the Catholic Church were both retained.
Calvin believed a soul did not sleep, but a soul went to Heaven or Hell as soon as it left the person. The Westminster Confession says, "Souls of the righteous Different characteristics of a person, not different parts of a person that one part can live without any other part; a person looked at from different points of view. BODY , Flesh and blood. SOUL , A person is a living being, the body plus the breath of life is a soul, a living being. Does a soul have any thoughts that our mind does not have? If not, according to today's theology, the only thing that will be in Heaven will have no thoughts.
The heart is used in the place of the mind for the thing that the mind does, the seat of, intellect, affection, understanding and will, not the part of the body that pumps blood. Has not the things said about the heart been transferred to a soul by those who believe a soul is an immaterial, immortal being that has no substance? The whole person dies, the whole person is buried, the whole person is resurrected for judgment, and the whole resurrected person that is in Christ will live with Christ. The whole person dies and the whole person is buried.
David himself, not a part of David, is dead and in his tomb, and many others where the whole person died and was buried. It is because the whole person is asleep, because the whole person is actually dead that the whole person must be resurrected and judged, not just an undead, immaterial something that had been in a person unto the death of the person.
The breath of life without the body would not be a person or animal; it would not be an immortal living being, not a nehphesh. All life comes from God and returns to God. The body plus the breath of life makes a living being a nehpheshs , makes a living person or animal. Body formed of the dust from the ground. Breathed into the nostrils of the body the breath of life. God takes away their breath. They return to the earth.
God takes away the breath. He returns to the earth. After Adam was put out of the garden he was still in the image of God, mankind is still in the image of God. If Adam was created innate immortal, then what was the purpose of the tree of life? If there was an immortal soul that was in Adam and that soul was created not subject to death, then the tree of life could have had no purpose; an immortal soul that cannot die would live forever with or without the tree of life; if there was a deathless soul that was in Adam, that deathless soul would not have died if it did eat, or did not eat of the tree of life; it was Adam that could and did die for eating of the forbidden fruit, not a deathless soul that could not die; an immaterial soul could not eat of the forbidden fruit, or die for eating of the forbidden fruit which a soul could not eat.
If the breath of life in his nostrils in Genesis 2: There is no excuse or defense for it; it is a deliberate attempt by the translators, who did not believe God's word as it is, to mislead their readers; all Bible teachers should point this out to all they teach James 3: And many more, but if this does not convict anyone that all living being are a soul nothing will. Notices how the translators tried to hide this from their readers. In the above twenty-two passages bugs, birds, fish, persons, are all nehpheshs, all are "living beings," not a deathless, immaterial something. According to the Old Testament understanding, a person is not a body, which happens to possess a soul.
Instead, a person is a living soul A person thus is a complete totality, made up of human flesh, spirit best understood as "the life-force' , and nephesh best understood as "the total self' but often translated as 'soul'. I must for myself confess that I can find no passages where it has undoubtedly this meaning.
For example, one might see a body of a dead person and say, 'That poor soul is dead. An example of how well the translators hid the fact that this is the same word that they translated soul in other places when they did not want you to see it. An immaterial something eating material flesh! Although it is often hid in many translations, the Bible says over times that a nehphesh soul.
Resurrection or life immediately after death?
Souls can be killed by man. Or that souls are already dead. If a soul can die, then whatever "nehphesh" is translated into something that can die. If the many words that "nehphesh" is translated into is something that can die, then a soul cannot be immortal, and a soul can die. To say that "nehphesh" is a soul that is immortal and it cannot die makes the Bible be wrong repeatedly.
An immortal soul can die or be utterly destroy. Not only does the Bible not say a soul is immortal, it denies it by saying often that a soul can die, can be killed, or a soul is already dead. An immortal soul can be killed? Can a immortal soul be killed by the sword? Can an immortal soul be slain? An immortal soul that cannot die, but it cannot be kept alive? Defiled by a dead soul? If they had it would have destroyed their pagan belief. Not "Let my soul that cannot die, die anyway?
A person has blood; if there were an immaterial soul it would have no blood. Can immortal souls be utterly destroyed with the sword? We say, "He worried me to dead. Did they think the Hebrew word nehphesh 1 is a mortal person that both can and will die, 2 or an immortal soul that cannot die? Dose an immaterial, invisible soul that is in a person have no substance, but it has blood!
If a soul were something that is immortal and cannot die, this passage is completely nonsense. When this is misapply, as it often is, to some immaterial something that is believed to be in a person; this is an undeniable statement that the immortal something that they say cannot die will die, that if there were a soul it would not have everlasting life with torment.
This is definitely not what they wanted, but what they made in their attempt to make there be a soul that is immortal. This theology makes nonsense of the Bible. It is life or death of a living person under the Law that is being spoken of, not two kinds of life after death; if death is only a separation of soul and body as men teach, what is the death of a soul; how can a soul that is alive but separated from God be dead? IN OVER , over one-third of the about times that nehphesh, the Hebrew word that is translated or mistranslated soul, is used.
A soul nehphesh is already dead. A soul nehphesh can die, and can be killed. A soul nehphesh can be buried. A soul nehphesh can be murdered. A soul nehphesh can be delivered from death. A soul nehphesh can be smote killed. A soul nehphesh can be affected. A soul nehphesh can be cut off. In most of these passages the translators of the King James and other translations have hidden from the readers that the very thing they believe to be immortal and cannot die, that it can and does die.
They feared for their life, not for a deathless being that was in them. The "nehphesh soul " can die, it can be dead, be killed, be sought to kill, be smote, die from a lack of food or water, be cut off, be murdered, be delivered from death, be born, live, sorrow, eat, drink water, desire, be discontented, be grieved, be bound with a bond, be affected, loathes, lust, have anguish, etc. Not one of the about times that nehphesh is used it does not have reference to an invisible, immaterial something in a person that has no substance and cannot die.
Nehphesh in the Old Testament and psukee in the New Testament are together used about times with over one-third being associated with the death of a soul person. Some nehpheshs—souls are dead. Some souls are dying. Some souls are in fear of death. Some souls have those who are trying to kill them. Some souls are saved from death, etc. On the other hand, in the times soul is used, not one time is a soul said to be deathless or immortal.
In this passage hehphesh is used four times in the Hebrew, but because of the bias of the translators not one time is it translated soul in the King James Version. They changed nehphesh into both man and beast to deliberately hide from their readers that animals, the same as men, are souls—that both are living beings that can and do die. As it is in the Hebrew. As it is in the King James Version. As it is in the New American Standard Bible.
Under the Law anyone that touched a dead body was unclean. Corpses are dead souls, and anyone any living souls who came in contact with a dead soul corpses, dead body was unclean. This clearly shows that the meaning of the Hebrew word nehphesh is something that is not immortal, and that it can die, or that it can be already dead, and that it can be touched when it is dead. There is no other word in the Bible that could be translated into Plato's immortal soul; therefore, the translators had to use this word and hide, the best they could, the fact that a nehphesh can and does die.
The other two they had to translate it grave Psalm In most translations nehphesh is sometimes translated to be immortal, sometime as mortal, often in the same passages. How could it be known when the same word is something that is mortal and when it is something that is immortal?
The Companion Bible, Appendix 13 says nehphesh life—soul is used. Of the lower animals nehpheshs—souls in 22 passages. Of the lower animals and man nehpheshs—souls in 7 passages.
Of man nehphesh—soul as an individual person in 53 passages. Of man nehphesh—soul as exercising certain powers or performing certain acts in 96 passages. Of man nehphesh—soul as possessing animal appetites and desires in 92 passages. Of man nehphesh—soul as exercising mental faculties and manifesting certain feelings, affection and passions in passages.
Of man nehphesh—soul being cut off by God and as being killed or slain by man in 54 passages. Of man nehphesh—soul as being mortal, subject to death of various kinds, from which it can be saved and delivered and life prolonged in passages. Of man nehphesh—soul as actually dead in 13 passages. Just one of the many examples of the absurdity of the translations of nehphesh in the King James Version with the meaning of "soul" as it is used today, an invisible, no substance something that is in a person that no one has ever seen, that no one can see this immortal something that cannot be seen.
How could anyone lay in wait ambush for an undying invisible something that is now in a person that no one can see? How could anyone kill something that cannot die even if they could see it? Both soul and life are from the same word nehphesh. Why were the translators so inconsistent; life and soul, according to the theology they believed, are two completely different things, yet they translated both from the same Hebrew word many times.
Again, both soul and person are translated from the same Hebrew word; they could smite kill all the persons, but to smite kill all the deathless souls would be completely impossible, but the King James Version says they did the impossible. Why did some translators do this? The truth is that they were trying to put "soul" with today's meaning in the Bible despite the fact that it is not there. If they had been consistent in translating, they would not have been able to add the doctrine of an undying soul in the Bible.
By His own being or person. Not even the King James translators wanted God to have an invisible something in Him that would live after He was dead. God's nehphesh and man's nehphesh are their being, person, not an invisible something that is in God or in a person. All the Old Testament words, which are translated life, spirit, breath, or soul, are all used referring to both persons and animals. Every word that is used to prove a person has an immortal soul or an immortal spirit would also prove all breathing creatures have an immortal soul or an immortal spirit if they proved a person does.
Sea creatures, birds Genesis 1: Every beast, bird, and insect is a nehphesh, are living beings. Used to describe man and animals , both man and animals have the same nshahmah breath of life—spirit. All living being, man, and animals died. All living being, both man and animals that breathed. All living being, both man and animals that had life, that breathed nshahmah were killed. All living being, both man and animals that breathed were killed.
Nshahmah is used 24 times, not one of the 24 says anything about anything that is immortal. Nshahmah as it is translated in the New International Version. All mankind would perish together,. And man would return to the dust. Of the twenty-four times nshahmah is in the Hebrew, it is translated soul only one time in the King James Version, Isaiah Nahahmah is the breath of life that comes from God in both mankind and animals; it is not an immortal soul. All flesh, birds, cattle, beasts, and every creeping thing —all have the same spirit ruach as man Genesis 7: Both ruach and nshahmah have very near if not the same meaning.
The above is an example of the many times ruach and nshahmah seem to be used interchangeable; they are both the breath, both are the life of a living being man or beast. Nshahmah is limited to the air or breath of the mouth of any breathing being; ruach also means any breathing being, but has a much broader use in that it is also used of wind and any air movement. Of about times ruach is used in the Old Testament it is translated wind about 90 times, breath 28 times, blast 4 times, air, windy, tempest, whirlwind, and tempest.
Both ruach and nshahmah are basically translated with the same words, both have something to do with the breath or air without which there would be no life; in Genesis 2: How did the translators know when the same word was wind, breath, spirit, blast, air, mind, courage, cool, or anger? In English the meaning of some of these words are not even close to being the same; how are those who read their translation to know that these are all translated from the same word in the Hebrew?
Idols are described as not having breath ruach Habakkuk 2: Also 2 Samuel An example of how other translations differ on the sixteen different ways above ruach is translated in the King James Version. Many of the sixteen different ways ruach is translated have nothing in common; their meanings are not even close to being the same; yet they are the same word in the Hebrew. There is no way that ruach could have had all these meaning. Vine something in Him that can exist after His death, as we are told that mankind has?
When ruach was breath of any mortal being. And when the same word was an immortal deathless something that does not breathe air. The two meaning are nothing alike. When God take away ruach breath they die. When God sends ruach breath , they live. The spirit as it is used today cannot die; therefore, this word ruach could not be translated spirit, but when the earth is renewed by new life, the translators give this new life a spirit ruach , not just breath ruach. No soul in them? A new soul put in them? Second, this word can be used with emphasis on the invisible, intangible, fleeting quality of air.
Fourth, the wind represents direction. Sixth, ruach is often used of. Ruach can represent particular dispositions , as it does in Josh. Just as in the New Testament, when spirit is used in reference to a person, it is the disposition of the persons mind or thinking. If the same word has many completely different meanings: One meaning that had reference to the mortal person or animal.
And another meaning of the same word that would have had reference to a immortal living being that is in a person unto the death of the person that animals do not have. If ruach is the immortal something that is in a person, then how is ruach also something that is in both a person and in an animal that is mortal? Then how could the Hebrew people know when it was speaking of a mortal person, or when it was actual speaking of something in the person that is immortal; how could they know that when the same word was speaking of an animal that it was speaking of something in the animal that was not immortal?
How could the translators know? The translators had to put their theology into the Bible, even if they could not be consistent. How could anyone read the Kings James Version and know that anger, cool, courage, air, mind, breath, wind, blast, and spirit are the same thing? Those who do not read Hebrew are misled by such indiscriminately translations. Summary - Nehphesh, nshahmah, and ruach are something that both a person and an animal have in common, and all three are something that can and does die.
How nehphesh and psukee are translated in seven. A bird's eye view below of the way psukee is translated all times it is used in the New Testament in four versions shows that a psukee is a living being, not an immortal no substance something. The translators wanted to put their immortal soul in the Bible, but they had a problem for if they had uniformly translated psukee into "soul," in some passages their immortal soul would have been subject to death and in other passages it would be dead.
Psukee is used about times, and it is the only word that is translated soul in the New Testament translated soul only 58 of the times in the King James Version , and psukee is the same word in Greek as nehphesh is in Hebrew. Both can and do die. How could the translators know when the same word was 1 something that could not die, or 2 something that could not keep from dying? None of the many translations of the Bible agree on, 1 When psukee should be translated a soul that cannot die.
Salvation is from death for the person, not from Hell for a soul. In Old English, soul, like ghost and charity, may have been an acceptable translation then, but not today. This translation is both false and unacceptable. Which one is it, a mortal being that will die, or an immortal being that cannot die? If there were a soul that could not die, it is strange that both the Old and New Testament repeatedly speak of the death of this deathless soul that cannot die.
Human language could not be any clearer that Christ is speaking of the whole person, and not some internal unseen something that is in a person. If the immortal soul doctrine were true, a person could not lose a soul that can never die; when the person dies, if a soul will live on then it is a soul that will lose the person it is in. This passage is about losing our physical life and not having the life that we now have, not having life or not having life after the resurrection. It is not about losing a soul with the meaning that soul has today, an immortal something in you; a meaning psukee did not have when the New Testament was written.
In the King James Version in the same sentence the same word psukee is translated into two words that have completely different meaning Matt. Also in Luke How could the translators of the King James Version know the same word in the same sentence has two completely different and opposite meaning? It was nothing more than a determination at any cost to put their Platonic theology into the Bible where it was not, even to put it into the mouth of Christ.
If the psukee were something that cannot die, Christ did not die. He could not have been raised from the dead for He was never dead. Psukee is translated life, strength, he, heart, heartily, you, mind, and us. These all have a reference to this life, to a person, and not to a soul that has no substance. How could the same word mean both 1 a mortal being that cannot keep from dying, 2 and an immortal being that cannot die?
- My Parents?
- A Small Drop of Ink: A Collection of Inspirational and Moving Quotations of the Ages!
- Luomo che vestiva di bianco (Italian Edition);
- Product details.
- My Wishlist!
Psukee life is the natural life from Adam. All living being have psukee life, it is the physical life common to all living creatures; it is never said to be eternal. All living creatures animals, fish, man by natural birth have psukee life from birth to death. It is never coupled with the adjective eternal or everlasting.
Even in the King James Version psukee is the only word that is translated soul in the New Testament, but it is translated soul only about one-half of the times it is used. In one passage psukee is translated life, in the other psukee is translated soul; if psukee did mean a soul, than in both passages a soul does die. The many words the translators used to translate "psukee" are both nouns and pronouns, it refer to 1 God 2 to a person 3 or to an animal; not to an immortal no substance something in God, not to an immortal no substance something in a person, not to an immortal no substance something in an animal.
The person or animal is sometimes dying, and is sometimes dead. The different translations do not agree on when it should be changed from a common to a proper noun, or changed to a pronoun. It is our lives that need food, our bodies that need cloths to be warm; an immortal soul could not use either one. See notes on this in chapter four. He is to be feared by those of the world because He will; there would be no reason to fear Him if He could not, or if He will not destroy life-psukee.
I find it strange that one of the most used passages, as it is translated in the King James Version, is used to prove a soul cannot be destroyed says a soul psukee—life can be destroy in the valley of Gehenna. Only after the words of Christ are changed from a psukee being cast into Gehenna to a soul being cast into Hell can this passage be used to teach the doctrine of God tormenting this something, whatever a soul is, in Hell even despite the fact that Hell is an English word, and there was no such word as Hell in the Greek at the time of Christ.
If, as many affirm, that there is a soul that is indestructible, where is even one scripture that teaches there is an indestructible or deathless soul; that there is a soul that will be alive in Heaven or alive any place before the Resurrection? Is not this saying God is not able to reduce something He created back to it original state of non-existences, or that God was able to create a soul, but God is not able to destroy a soul, not able to uncrate that which He created; if He had created a soul and is now unable to destroy it, then He is not omnipotent, not all powerful.
What made the translators think Christ used the same word in the same sentence with two completed different meaning? In today's English, the meaning of "soul" and "life" are not even close to being the same, yet they were translated from the same Greek word in the same sentence. The earthly life that is saved from death by a denial of Christ is the same life that is lost by martyrdom of those that confess Christ; it is this earthly life that both the lost and saved have in common.
Will the body of a person suffer eternal life in endless misery? Is it not unreasonable to say destroying a soul means eternal life in endless misery beings tormented by God, but destroying the body means death of the person a soul was in? The person who saves his life by denying Christ will lose life at the judgment. The person that loses his life because he is a Christian and will not deny Christ will find life at the judgment. There is no way Christ could have said it any clearer or plainer. There is not a word said about eternal life with torment for a deathless soul in this passage.
The teaching today is that this no substance soul that is in a person cannot be lost, but will just change its address to Heaven or Hell when death makes the person it is now in to no longer exist. Many are saying, "Not so Lord, these souls 'shall not lose life,' for the immaterial, invisible soul shall have eternal life in Hell"; if this is not what they say, than what are they saying?
The same thing that is saved is the same thing that will be lost. The person who saves his life by denying Christ. Will lose the same thing, his life at the judgment. It is not a soul that will be lost at the judgment, but the life of a person. Losing life is the opposite of keeping life, losing life is to not have life; death is not another kind of life.
When save and lose in Matthew To lose ones soul means for that soul to go to Hell forever, according to today's theology. How could anyone know this? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life psukee? For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life psukee? The life that is prolonged for a little while by denying Christ that will be lost, but the life that is loss by being faithful to Christ will be saved at the judgment.
In the King James Version the same word is inconsistently translated "soul" two times, and "life" two times, but corrected in the American Standard Version and most others where all four times the same word psukee is translated "life. Luke avoids using the word psukee in Luke His Gentile readers might have understood the word the way it was used by the Greeks of that time; therefore, he used a word that means the whole person, and not the Greek soul that many of the Greeks of that time believed would be reincarnated.
But they held their peace. The translators would not translate psukee into "soul" in this passage for it would then say a soul could be killed. So is he that lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. Nothing is said about an immortal soul that will be forever tormented. In this passage psukee does the things that only this earthly body can do, things that an immortal no substance soul could not do. Can a soul that has no earthly body eat, drink, or use any earthly goods? Hate is used in the sense of thinking less of.
If you do not think less of your life than you think of Christ you cannot be His disciple. Christ must be first over all things and all persons. He that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them , because he is a hireling, and cares not for the sheep.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Those who do not put God first will lose their psukee life.
Resurrection or life immediately after death?
If psukee is an immortal soul that can never die, it could not be lost. He did lay down His life for us. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the cock shall not crow, till you have denied me thrice. To use soul in this passage would not teach what they believed; therefore, they did not use it. It can be seen how the translators picked when they wanted psukee to be a soul, and when they had no choice but to translate it life.
Both their life and the ship could have been lost in this storm, but not an immortal soul if there were one. Many read "Hell" "shall save a soul from Hell" in the place of "death. The whole person will be saved from death, not an immortal living something that is in person that could not be dead, but it will be saved from death even if it could not be dead.
Christ lay down His life for us, and we should be willing to lay down our life for our brethren. If this were a deathless something that is in a person, we would be being told to do something that it would not be possible for us to do. The Gentiles were turned against the brothers in this life, not against immortal souls that were in the brothers.
Poor in a no substance immortal spirit? In the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, the same word psukee is translated "understanding" in one and "soul" in the other. It is a living person that is to love God and his or her neighbor, not a soul that is to love its neighbor. Was there an immortal spirit in one place, and his body was in another while he was alive? If so, then the immortal spirit can leave the body when it wants to, and the body can live without the spirit, but James tells us that the body without the spirit is dead James 2: No, he was saying he was with them in his thoughts and heart, not that an immortal spirit had left his body, and it went to Colossae without his body, and returned to his body and raised the dead body.
Walked we not in the same steps? Did they all share only one immortal soul or one immortal spirit? In Old English, and even today souls is used to mean persons or life. A newspaper reporting a shipwreck in which fifty people drown would say, "Fifty souls were lost. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. Some translations leave psukee out, just as we would say, "Three thousand persons were saved," or "Three thousand were saved.
He that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: He gives His life, not an immortal soul. He died our death. He took on Himself the whole penalty for sin that is due the sinner, the penalty of death, He did not suffer an eternal life being tormented by God.
Father, save me from this hour. It was Christ that was in the grave, not just a part of Him. In these passages psukee, which is translate both life and soul from the same word, refers to God or Christ, not to an invisible something that is in Christ and God. For notes on these see chapter eight. Those who believe in the Pagan doctrine of an immortal soul from birth, and believe in Hell have no plain easily understood non-figurative statement.
Figurative language and parables are made to be superior over plain statements, and clear language must be made to agree with what is thought to be said; made to agree with what they want to find in the symbolic language. Are immortal souls, as the word is used today, in the sea? Do fish have an immortal soul? When will all the fish in the sea literally die? Will immortals soul be slaves in Heaven or any other place?
Five of the six times psukee is used in Revelation, psukee is something that can and does die. Psukikos - natural earthly. Neither a soul nor a spirit is the spiritual body that saved persons will have after the resurrection. The spiritual body is us changed, not an immaterial something in us changed to another immortal something after it is not in us. But those that believe either a soul or a spirit is now immortal do not believe the soul or the spirit will be changed to a nother immortal being, or changed in any way after they leaves us. The image of Christ, the spiritual bodies only the saved will have after the resurrection is not an earthly body in the image of Adam.
We are now a soul a living being in the image of Adam, but we will not be a soul a living being in the image of Adam after the resurrection; it is a body person in the image of Christ that will be raised from the dead. All animals are souls living beings—Hebrew nehphesh—Greek psukee , but animals will never have a spiritual body. Now we are a natural—soulish being, then we will be a heavenly being. It belongs to this world. Such things are earthly, unspiritual psuchikos—soulish , and motivated by the Devil.
From the above it is clear that psuchikos, the adjective form of psukee, means something of this earth, and not something immaterial and immortal. The adjective form of a noun never has a meaning that is totally different from the meaning of the noun. Both the noun psukee and the adjective psuchikos are the earthly, natural soulish person, the image of Adam. If I believed the psukee soul was an immaterial invisible being that is now in a person, then I would hope no one would ever see its adjective form in the above six passages. Psuchikos—a soulish body in 1 Corinthians A living soul, the earthly person in the image of Adam, will be changed to a spiritual body in the image of Christ at the resurrection.
It is the person that dies, it is the person that will be raised from the dead, not a soul that cannot die or be raised from the dead; it is a person that is now mortal that will put on immortality at the resurrection, not a soul that is already immortal. Buried in corruption—raised in incorruption 1 Corinthians This mortal body —must put on immortality 1 Corinthians Buried in dishonor—raised in glory 1 Corinthians Buried in weakness—raised in power 1 Corinthians Buried a natural body flesh and blood —raised a spiritual body 1 Corinthians First now the natural—then that, which is spiritual 1 Corinthians The first Adam a living soul—the last Adam Christ a life giving spirit 1 Corinthians Image of Adam is the earthy soul psukee—body that all living persons now are.
No one now has a spiritual body, not anyone that is now alive, or anyone that is now asleep in Christ. If there were a soul that is in a person that is now immortal, that soul would not be mortal; therefore, an already immortal soul could not put on immortality. It is the moral person that will put on immortality at the resurrection, not something in a person that was immortal from birth that could never be mortal.
When Paul said this many believers had died, but their resurrection had not came, putting on immortality, being changed to the image of Christ was not something that had already came at their death. They are opposite to each other; a person cannot be both simultaneously. Many preachers today say, "Save your soul," which is saying, "Save your 'image of Adam,'" or, "Save your earthly flesh and blood body. If we are raised with a body that is a spiritual body and is incorruptible, we could not at the same time be raised with an earthly body that is a corruptible body.
All will be raised from the dead at the resurrection, and those in Christ will have a new body not of flesh. We will not be a soul in the image of Adam as we are now, but we will be the same person we now are. How is it that many cannot see that when they say, "save your soul" they are saying, "keep the image of Adam" the earthly body?
Do you want to be raised with an earthy body in the image of Adam, the body that you now have, or do you want to be raised with a spiritual body in the image of Christ? We are born a soul—a living being in the image of Adam, but the saved will be resurrected a spiritual being in the image of Christ, and will not have the earthly image of Adam after the resurrection.
There are many Premillennialists in the Protestants churches and many others that believe the earthly body, the image of Adam, will be raised, and believe that all the saved will live on this earth forever, not in Heaven, that the earthly body will be restored to be like Adam before he sinned. I know of no passage that says Adam's body was different before and after he sinned, but if his body was different the rest of mankind never had the body Adam had before he sinned; therefore, all but Adam would have to be raised with a physical body that will be different from this body we now have if we were raised with a body like Adam had before he sinned.
Many believe the same body we now have will be raised; there are many volumes of writing on how God will be able to restore the same body with the same particles of matter it now has. All the particles of matter in our bodies are completely changed every few years; there is not a single molecule of matter in an adult that was in the baby at birth, nor in an old person that was in a young person, but the baby is the same person as the old person even despite the fact that the body is completely different; all the matter that has been in the body of a person that lives to be old has been changed many times, and it would be enough to make many bodies, it would be a mountain of matter.
Synonyms for "soul" that are used in 1 Corinthians 15, earth, earthly dust , corruption, natural body, mortal, image of Adam, flesh and blood. It would be a separation of a soul from a soul the image of Adam from the image of Adam. Mike Willis said a spiritual body is not an ethereal body any more than Christ's was a shadowy, ghostly, ethereal body.
But rather, a spiritual body is a body that is suited for the spiritual world, which God has planned for mankind. He has clearly said the "soul" he thinks we now have is not the "spiritual body," which we shall have in Heaven. The "soul" could then only be a shadowy, ghostly, ethereal body, which he said Christ does not have.
A spiritual body is not just a thin air, no substance, ghostly something, but we know not what. A soul is the natural body, the image of Adam, a living being; it is the earthy body that will die, and it cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. At death that earthly body was 'sown' or planted in the earth. Flesh and blood bodies, bodies made of corruptible earthly materials, are not compatible with a home in the world of redeemed and glorified spirits. The soul's tenement, if it has one, must be adapted to the new conditions of being. Are we then denied a body in the future state?
I may not be able to understand the nature of that body, because I have never seen such an existence, but I can accept the statements of the word of God and believe that it is exactly fitted to the happy sphere of glorified existence. From him came our natural life. The last Adam, Christ, of whom Adam was a type.
By giving life to the dead, and imparting spiritual existence. Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual. And as the bodies are not all the same, so also the resurrected body will not be the same with this earthly body. Moreover, as the celestial and the terrestrial bodies differ in glory so also the resurrection body will differ from the earthly body. As verses tell us:. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul. The last Adam a life-giving spirit. In this passage, the phrase "natural body" is a translation of the Greek phrase "soma psuchikon, where the word "psuchikon" is the adjective form of the noun "psuche" that means "soul". Thus, "soma psuchikon" means "soul body" i.
This is the body that we have now, the body that "is sown" I Corinthians However, this body is inappropriate for the eternal life that God has promised us. Really as I Corinthians This body of flesh and blood, being corruptible, is unable to inherit incorruption, and thus it has to be changed. As verses say:. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Only when the mortal and corruptible body we have now will put on immortality and incorruption, death will have been swallowed up in victory. For the new body - the body that is raised I Corinthians It will not be a soul body i. As verses of I Corinthians 15 tell us:. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; and afterward the spiritual.
The first man was of the earth, earthly: As was the earthly, so also are they that are earthy: And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Any man that has passed from the face of the earth, Adam and Christ included, had a soul body. However, Jesus is the only one that went further than this, for though he died, he did not remain dead as all the others, but he was raised, after three days and three nights, with an incorruptible, spiritual, body.
Thus, the spiritual body is not a theoretical concept, but a reality since it is the body that the Lord Jesus Christ has now 3. And as we now wear Adam's "uniform", the soul body - "the image of the earthly" - so one day, the day of Christ's coming, we will also wear his "uniform", the spiritual body, - "the image of the heavenly". When will this happen is something that is answered in verses of the same chapter of I Corinthians, where we read:.
For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. God does not want us ignorant about those who died and for this reason, He has supplied in His Word all the relevant information for our benefit. Thus, according to this information, Christ is the first and the only one that though he died he is alive NOW, as God raised him from the dead. As I Corinthians Following him, the next that will be made alive will be those who are Christ's i.
Regarding now the time that the dead in Christ will be made alive, the Word defines it as the time of the Lord's coming. In turn, this means that since the Lord's coming is still a future event, the dead can by no means be alive now. However, this will not be the only event that will happen that day, as along with the raising of the dead Christians, those Christians that will be alive that day will be caught up with the raised ones in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air I Thessalonians 4: And as I Thessalonians 4: Regarding now the body that the dead will have that day, this will be what the Bible calls "spiritual body" i.
This will also be the body that the alive Christians that will be caught up in the clouds that day will get, in substitution of the present corruptible soul body. According to the Word, all this will take just "a twinkling of an eye" I Corinthians The exact time is not something that God has revealed in His Word and therefore no-one can know it see I Thessalonians 5: Despite the fact that the Word of God states very clearly the truth about the dead ones, a look at what most Christians believe shows great differences.
Really, for many Christians when one dies his soul continues to live and after it is judged, it goes to heaven where it is with the Lord and its loved ones, having full consciousness and praising the Lord in a blissful state. Thus, according to this "common view", death is actually a friend by which we obtain a better life in "the other side".
A comparison of this view to what we saw that God revealed for our benefit, makes its faultiness obvious. However, apart from the passages we have seen by now, the Word contains even more that make the wrong of the "common view" and its claims more than evident. Below, the main claims of this view will be examined and put against the Word of God 4.
As we saw in part 1, the first group of dead that will go to heaven will be the raised Christians, in the day of the Lord's coming. From this, it can be easily concluded that no dead is in heaven now - apart of course from the raised Christ - and no-one goes there after his death. Where therefore do the dead go after death?
The answer that the Bible gives is in the gravedom, as this is the meaning of the words "Sheol" and "Hades" that the Bible uses to denote the place of the dead. A complete understanding of the characteristics of the gravedom can be obtained by a word study of these two words. For this purpose appendix 2 contains a complete list of their occurrences in the Bible.
Another claim of tradition is that after death, the dead continue living, having full knowledge and consciousness and helping the living ones. Again, from what God told us so that we may no longer be ignorant it is obvious that a claim like this cannot be right. Really, according to what we saw, the dead are not alive now which in turn means that they cannot do things that can be assigned to and characterize the living ones only. Thus there we read:.
My Shopping Bag
As it is obvious from this passage, the dead are not conscious, and "nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun" i. This not only refutes the claim of consciousness and knowledge after death but it also refutes the claim of many denominations that "holy" dead men appeared to other "holy" men and spoke to them, or that such persons as Mary hear and answer prayers.
As we saw, according to the Bible, with the exception of the raised Christ there is no man that died and is alive now. Thus there is no dead that can appear to alive people or hear and answer prayers for, being dead, he has no consciousness and cannot "have a share in anything done under the sun. Another claim of tradition regarding the dead, is that when one dies he goes to heaven where he praises God.
Though from the examination of the information that God gave us so that we may be informed and not ignorant, it is obvious that this claim is again false, as the dead are neither in heaven nor they are alive so that they can praise, the Word answers this claim directly as well. In the grave [Sheol] who shall give you thanks?
Contrary to the tradition's ideas, the Word makes clear that "in death there is NO remembrance" of God. In Sheol, the gravedom, no one will give Him thanks for no one is alive there so that he can do that. It is the living and not the dead that will thank and glorify God. It is now that we will thank Him and praise Him and not when we will die.
In addition to the above, another claim of tradition is that death is a friend sent by God to bring us nearer to Him. Again, what we have seen in parts 1 and 2, is enough to show that this claim is again false. Really, if death was a friend sent by God then there would be no reason for God to cancel its effects with the resurrection.
This shows that death cannot be a friend, as tradition supports. Really, in I Corinthians Death is not a friend, as many present it, but an enemy and as such it will be destroyed 5. From this we can additionally conclude that death being an enemy that God will destroy, cannot have God as originator. Who is then the real originator of death? The answer is given in Hebrews 2: It is the devil therefore that has the power of death. Devil was a murderer from the beginning.