What is a "soul?"

[Retrobyter]

4 hours ago, suzan344 said:

Sorry, did you just say God has puffed living creatures into everyone?

No. I said that God puffed AIR into Adam the SAME AS He puffed AIR into the other living creatures! The Hebrew word "haa'aadaam" was translated as "the man," but it literally means "the-red-[man]." That's the same "red" as was in the soil from which he was made, and it refers not just to the color of his skin, but also to the red, life-giving blood showing through his skin. We call this a "rosy glow." Some might even say that he looked "flushed!"

4 hours ago, suzan344 said:

OK.  Will stop giving you a bad time about this.  

If you like my opinion on what happened....

It is...

God named Adam and then later when Adam was on earth, that name became 'red (or rubby) man'.  I just don't see the color 'red' as applicable to the original Adam who I feel was not made of flesh and bone and hence had no color associated with him in the garden.

First, the word is "RUDDY," not "rubby." How could Adam "not [be] made of flesh and bone, if Chavah ("Eve") was taken out of Adam as a rib bone from which God made the woman?

Genesis 2:18-23 (KJV)

18 And the LORD God said, 

"It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (suitable) for him."

19 And out of the ground the LORD God (had) formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet (suitable) for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said,

"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (Hebrew: Iyshah), because she was taken out of Man (Hebrew: Iysh)."

So, you're wrong to say that "Adam ... was not made of flesh and bone." He most certainly WAS made of flesh and bones!

The key here is that God took a bone from Adam that has all the traits of the genetic make-up of Adam, all the XY chromosomes, and took two X haploids and combined them into the XX chromosomes that the woman would need. Red blood cells that carry oxygen to all the cells of the body are made in the marrow of the bones, and the bone structure is a good source for stem cells to form all the organs in the human body.

4 hours ago, suzan344 said:

The second point, which is far fetched I understand to people but not to me, is that there are living beings (creatures) in Heaven that God uses.

Since this may be the only passage in the Bible that references them as coming from God in a 'puff' snd then going into Adam, who is already formed, I feel at this juncture in his creation, and changing him from a living being to a living soul (I suspect), I can only speculate from here on out what they really are.

Don't bother; you'll just confuse yourself all the more. <Sigh.> I'll say it again because you're new to the conversation: The Hebrew word translated "soul" is "nefesh." And, the noun "nefesh" comes from the Hebrew root verb "naafash," which means "to breathe air." "Nefesh," then, means an "air-breathing creature!" STOP THINKING OF "SOUL" AS SOMETHING IMMATERIAL OR "SPIRITUAL!"

Pure and simple, Adam was NOT a "living being" before he became a "living air breather!"

4 hours ago, suzan344 said:

I will state they make up what we call the Tree of Life and I feel that they are they are the hidden manna (Rev. 2:7 and 2:17) mentioned in Revelations too.

Rev. 2:7 speaks of 'eating' living creatures.

"Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God."

Rev. 2:17 speaks of hidden manna:

Rev. 2:17

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who overcomes, I will give the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone inscribed with a new name, known only to the one who receives it."

Conclusion

God used a form of power that requires he breathe out something that is within himself, that is intelligent and self alive (self aware) and can be referred to as animate (having life), into Adam.

This made Adam immortal and hence a God.

This creature came originally from the Tree of Life.  But it resided in God himself eventually.

So now we know how Heaven functions.

Hint:  What is the human spirit once it enters Paradise, per the Jew's view?

I can speculate further upon request.

Please, don't. These assumptions and conclusions you've made are nonsensical. You don't understand the four important terms you've twisted in your viewpoint: 

1. The Tree of Life
2. Manna
3. Heaven
4. Paradise

First, the Tree of Life was a LITERAL TREE found within Gan-`Eden, the Garden of Eden. Adam and his wife Chavah could have eaten some of the fruit of this tree, but were PREVENTED from doing so after they disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was also a LITERAL TREE found in the Garden. Don't argue; don't speak; don't think! Just READ! and READ FOR UNDERSTANDING:

Genesis 2:8-17 (KJV)

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

When Adam and Chavah ate from the forbidden tree, we read this about God's conclusion:

Genesis 3:22-24 (KJV)

22 And the LORD God said,

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of (fruit from) the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever ... ": (SHUDDER! Too awful to complete the thought!)

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims (Hebrew: kruviym), and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep (prevent; guard) the way of (the road or path to) the tree of life.

Remember, too, that this included Chavah ("Eve") because "Adam" referred to both the male and the female:

Genesis 5:1-2 (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name "Adam," in the day when THEY were created.

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Typo. The "y" is next to the "u" on the qwerty keyboard. 

Shabbat shalom, Josheb.

Then, your typo is almost a Freudian slip! Many transliterations of the Greek words PURPOSELY substitute a "y" for an "upsilon." I find it interesting that one of your interests is listed as "Psychology," and "psych-" is transliterated DIRECTLY from the Greek word "psuchee!" The word "Psychology" comes from this word and "logos" meaning a "word" or a "topic," and thus we get that the word "Psychology" means the "study of the soul," although the definition commonly used of "soul" for this word is the wrong definition. Isn't that interesting how they are all tied together?

I looked it up, and it may be because the capital Greek letter upsilon is written like our "Y."

Edited January 2, 2021 by Retrobyter
to add info

[Alive]

13 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

I looked it up, and it may be because the capital Greek letter upsilon is written like our "Y."

 

:-)

[Retrobyter]

13 minutes ago, Alive said:

 

:-)

Shabbat shalom, Alive.

I did a little more investigating, and found that words like "muthos" became "myth" in English, and it may also have come through the German language, although the "y" in German is pronounced like "ee," which in turn may have supported the use of the "y" in English transliteration.

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Typo. The "y" is next to the "u" on the qwerty keyboard. 

Shabbat shalom, both of you.

I got to thinking: It's entirely possible that the "Y" was put next to the "U," typed by the same finger, ON PURPOSE when the Qwerty keyboard was designed, thus making a "typo" much easier to type! Just a thought.

[Alive]

Yea--there are undoubtedly examples in English of both Greek and Latin, but english is a 'Germanic' language and much more so derived.

:-)

Like hotdog.

[Retrobyter]

14 hours ago, Josheb said:

Posts, not poster. 

Shalom, Josheb.

I really don't know what you mean here, but I do "agree" that we address the posts and not the poster. I do not accept an ad hominem argument. It's an illogical approach to a solution.

Quote

The salient points are
1a) the Hebrew being is not identical to 1b) the Greek soul and ...

Nevertheless, the authors of the New Testament, including our own Lord Yeshua` the Messiah, used the Hebrew "being," that is, the "nefesh," for all that was taught by both our Lord Yeshua` and His emissaries, such as Rav Kefa ("Peter"), Rav Ya`aqoV ("James"), Rav Yochannan ("John"), and Rav Sha`uwl "Paulos" ("Paul"). Only later was the B'rit Chadashah (the "New Testament") translated into the Greek for universal translation of the Scriptures to the Gentiles as well as the Hebrews. For the early believers, the word "psuchee" (a) was close enough to translate "nefesh" (A) into Greek. The word "pneuma" (b) was close enough to translate "ruwach" (B) into Greek, and the word "zooee" (c) was close enough to translate "chay" (C) into Greek. While you are right in that no two languages are completely one-to-one, without the ability to translate, we would be lost to God's Word without learning the original languages of Hebrew and Aramaic.

The editors of Strong's Concordance disagree with you:

5590 psuchee (a) (psoo-khay'). From psuchoo; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from pneuma (b), which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from zooee (c), which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew nephesh (A), ruwach (B) and chay (C))
-- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.

Notice, though, that Strong's says the "soul" (psuchee) is the "spirit," but "spirit" (pneuma) is the "rational and immortal soul." Thus, although they know that ...

A = a,
B = b,
C = c,

they really don't know what A, B, and C are in Hebrew, nor what a, b, and c are in Greek!

Quote

1c) what Jesus taught is substantively different than either and much of that truth is lost on the the 1d) English and 1e) KJV tradition, and ...

Not so much as you believe. It's simply that English has evolved (devolved, really) away from the King's English of the 1600s and thus English-speaking peoples are moving farther and farther away from understanding the KJV.

Quote

2) it is air-breathed, not air-breathing.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. A "nefesh" is one who "naafash." And, it's the same as a "psuchee" is one who "psuchoo." An "air-breathing creature" is one who "breathes air!"

Quote

Even fish have the breath of life in them but they are not air-breathing creatures. If we limit the meaning of the text to either (air-breathed or air-breathing) we are not saying anything particularly special or unique because there are a lot of animals that breathe air but they don't bear the image of God and they are living beings in the same manner as humans. 

I sort of agree with you ... with qualifications: First, all fish may not be included in that assessment because the word "nefesh" was used for "great whales," as well as "sea-going dinosaurs."

Genesis 1:21 (KJV)

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The Hebrew says,

21 VayiVraa' Elohiym et hattanniynim hagdoliym v'et kal nefesh hachayyaah haaromeset asher shaartsuw hammayim lmiyneehem v'et kal owf kaanaaf lmiyneehuw; vayyar Elohiym kiy towV.

A tanniyn is a monstrous created being; Iyov ("Job") quotes God in Job 41 describing such a being as having scales that are sealed together. The word is also translated as "snake," "serpent," and "dragon" in various places of Scripture. I believe the word applies to BOTH sets of creatures, the baleen whales and toothed whales that we called "mammals" today and the sea-going dinosaurs.

Still, even fish are "oxygen-breathing" creatures, filtering out the oxygen dissolved in the seas through their gills, discarding the carbon dioxide at the same time.

 

Quote

Everyone seems to agree with that last part but there still persists this irreconcilable idea the soul and/or spirit are separable - separable in a manner in which one or the other can be removed from the whole and still persist. It's not true. It is not what the scriptures teaches in word and it is not what scripture teaches in practice, example, or precedent (whichever term folks prefer).  Heb. 4:12 speaks of a separation but it does not even remotely state either stands alone or can do so. People are reading that dross into the text. The same is true of 1 Thes. 5:23 and other commonly appealed-to verses proof-texted to justify a tripartitism that is not consistent with the whole of scripture. 

While I appreciate your persistence your post doesn't change any of those facts. 

So I will again reiterate my position: The tripartite model is useful but limited. It cannot and should not be asserted to say the body, the soul, or the spirit of a human can exist entirely separated from the other elements (or conditions or components or whatever term you like). That is not what whole scripture teaches and there isn't a single example of that happening in the Bible. Therefore the correct view is that of the unified view, not the tripartite view. Dualism and tripartitism have valid but limited value but they do not accurately represent the whole of scripture's revelation about humanity.

Frankly, I don't even accept the tripartite model! The "body" is the man without life. The "soul" is the "air-breathing person" that does have life, and the "spirit" is just the "breath" of the individual while he is alive. That's ALL that the Scriptures say. Everything else that is thrown into the definitions come STRICTLY from the philosophies of Theology. The expanded definitions unauthorized by God may have some usefulness to certain people (such as philosophers and psychologists), but they have no merit in real life.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Retrobyter
to complete the corresponding designations

[Retrobyter]

On 12/28/2020 at 2:59 PM, Retrobyter said:

God doesn't need to put His Spirit back into a person; the person is in the Holy Spirit of God already!

I had another thought, but being human, I've lost it ... temporarily. I believe it was important enough that God will give it back to my memory.

Shalom, everyone.

I had said I had another thought. Here it is: If God needed to puff the puff of life into all the animals of His creation, He could have easily done so. He is, after all, an INFINITE God! Not only is He infinite in time, that is, eternal, but He is also infinite in space and presence, that is, an OMNIPRESENT God. Thus, while we think of doing one thing at a time, God is not so restricted! He could be present for the creation of each and every creature He made! It's a lot like how He can be present and listen to the whispered prayer of every man, woman, boy or girl, who may pray any moment of any day throughout the whole world!

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Then what I mean was understood. The comment "Your typo was a Freudian slip," has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and probably wouldn't be made to any other poster. I got the humor, Retro. No worries. 

Shalom, Josheb.

Yeah, I refreshed my memory by looking up what a "Freudian slip" was once again, and that's NOT what I meant. I simply meant that it was a bit IRONIC that the mistake was not truly yours; you were SET UP by the background of the situation.

Quote

Not only is some of that self-contradictory, but it is also untrue. The word is "being" not "soul."

Depends on the version. The word in Hebrew is "nefesh" regardless.

Quote

I completely agree. The term psuche wasn't what was used by Jesus. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek. We have no idea what word Jesus used. There's a hole in the middle of the argument claiming nephes[h] and psuche are identical because we have no idea what word Jesus used.

Well, knowing that Aramaic is the language of Aram, which was later called "Syria," and that the language was a close cousin to Hebrew, close enough to be called a dialect of Hebrew, the word is still "nefesh." That's the word used by Yeshua`, who, by the way, knew Hebrew, too! He knew it well enough to read it in the synagogue and to quote it in His teachings! Why do you think the first dictionary in Strong's Concordance was named the "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary?" There are sections in the TANAKH (an acronym for the Hebrew Bible consisting of the Torah, the Navi'iym [prophets], and the Ketuviym [Writings]) called the "Old Testament" by Christians) in Daniel and in Ezra that were written in Aramaic, the Chaldean language with which the Jews came back from Persia and Babylon. Remember, we are talking about the Fertile Crescent. They made their way back from Persia through Aram. The Aramaic letters were drawn slightly differently, but the words were largely the SAME!

TruthOnlyBible.com says,

"The portions of Scripture that were written in Aramaic include Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 (67 verses), Daniel 2:4b–7:28 (200 verses), Jeremiah 10:11, and various proper names and single words and phrases scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments."

And, it was for THOSE words that the words "and Chaldee" were added to the title of the dictionary.

Quote

What we do know is Jesus taught an entirely different paradigm than those that prevailed in Sadduccean theology and Greek/Roman myth. Why people refuse to factor in what they know is unknown but those are the facts.

Well, yes. His teaching was VERY close to that of the P'rushiym (the "Pharisees"). The differences were that He BELIEVED what the teachings said and taught others to BELIEVE them, as well!

Quote

Nephesh and psuche are not identical terms and they do not come from identical schemas. Can't acknowledge those facts and then act like it is irrelevant.

They are MUCH closer than you are making them out to be! Don't focus on the definition (which is susceptible to theological modifications thrown into the mix); focus on the ETYMOLOGY! Get the words' BASIC meanings:

5315 nefesh (neh'-fesh). From naafash; properly, A BREATHING CREATURE, i.e. Animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental)
-- any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

5314 naafash (naw-fash'). A primitive root; TO BREATHE; passively, to be breathed upon, i.e. (figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air)
-- (be) refresh selves (-ed).

5590 psuchee (psoo-khay'). From psuchoo; BREATH, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from pneuma, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from zooee, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew nephesh, ruwach and chay)
-- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you. 

5594 psuchoo (psoo'-kho). A primary verb; TO BREATHE (voluntarily but gently, thus differing on the one hand from pneoo, which denotes properly a forcible respiration; and on the other from the base of aeer, which refers properly to an inanimate breeze), i.e. (by implication, of reduction of temperature by evaporation) to chill (figuratively)
-- wax cold.

Thus, the Greek word psuchoo is EXACTLY the same as the Hebrew word naafash. Both are verbs of their respective languages, both mean the same thing, and both are the source of the nouns, nefesh and psuchee. I find fault with Strong's definition of psuchee, which does NOT refer to the "breath" of the individual but rather to the "individual" itself. Therefore, it should say the "ANIMAL OR CREATED-BEING WHICH BREATHES."

And, psuchee was close enough to nefesh for Paul to use it to translate Genesis 2:7 in 1 Corinthians 15:45:

Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man (Hebrew: haa'aadaam) became a living soul (Hebrew: nefesh).

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)

45 And so it is written, "The (first) man Adam was made a living soul (Greek: psucheen, the accusative form of psuchee)"; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

So, in point of fact, YOU are wrong.

Quote

Jesus taught a completely different paradigm. Can't acknowledge that and then act like it is irrelevant. 

Sorry, you've not proven that point. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant.

Quote

Scripture never  provides us with examples of ideas posted in this op. Folks should acknowledge that and its relevance.
Those that do acknowledge such an absence cannot acknowledge it and then act like it is irrelevant. 

Again, you are WRONG in these statements. I JUST HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT SCRIPTURE DOES PROVIDE US WITH EXAMPLES!

Quote

What the early believers understood was what Jesus taught. Can't acknowledge that fact and then act like it is irrelevant.

I never have. I believe that it is the modern Christians who don't understand what Yeshua` taught and what the early believers understood.

Quote

The tripartite view some here have asserted is not rooted in what Jesus taught but in Hebraic and Greek terms. Can't acknowledge that fact and then....
The tripartite view some here have asserted is rooted in the KJV and tradition and not what Jesus taught. Can't acknowledge that fact and then....

When any poster show me an example of a disembodied soul/spirit I will adjust my thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly. Scripture speaks of these constituent conditions or components in distinct terms but it never asserts one autonomous from the others. In the absence of any such example and the repeatedly occurring alternative I invite those in dissent to adjust their thinking, doctrine, and practice to the facts of scripture. 

For these last statements, I feel like you've JUMPED SIDES and are now on MY side. (? Welcome! I think?) What you've said here is EXACTLY as I believe! So, how did it end up in a post responding to and arguing against my position?

Edited January 3, 2021 by Retrobyter
to fix a few things

[Retrobyter]

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

Don't misrepresent my posts. 

Shalom, Josheb.

Never have. I'm going to take the rest of this a point at a time. Follow and see how all the points I make are intertwined. They are not speculations; they are taken directly from the Hebrew/Aramaic language and from Scripture. It is the Ruwach haQodesh Elohiym (the Holy Spirit of God) who weaves them into a perfect fabric of understanding.

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

I have explained what I read scripture asserting and I have explained how and why I view scripture that way. That entire lengthy post did nothing to address any of it. That entire post argued a straw man. Unnecessarily. There's no excuse for misstating my position because I posted it many times in many ways. There's no excuse for ignoring what has been posted simply because you want to repeat your pov.

While you may THINK you've explained "what you read Scripture asserting," you haven't or there would no longer be any confusion on it. The TRUTH is, however, that which you are "asserting Scripture to say" is NOT what the Scriptures say AT ALL! Read for understanding, and read the Scriptures to see what THEY say to US without trying to see what WE say within THEM! Use exegesis, not eisegesis!

There's no "straw man" in what I said. I noticed that you are still limited by the fake definitions of the words "spirit" and "soul," despite the truths that you have found in the Scriptures.

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

I understand the basic meanings of the words. I also understand their respective cultural significances, similarities, and differences. I also know Jesus 1) spoke differently from OT Judaism and 2) different from pagan mythology, and 3) didn't speak/teach in Greek. You can apply Greek all you like but the fact remains Jesus did not speak in Greek and he was not teaching a Greek/Hellenist paradigm. This is especialy true of John's report. John repudiated the Hellenism of his day. I understand these things.

Do you?

Or is your (commendable) knowledge of Hebrew so vast that its limits relevant to Jesus' teachings have been neglected?

First of all, the Greek language is all we have left of what the Aramaic Scriptures may have originally said in the early First Century A.D. So, either we do some "reverse engineering" on the Greek text to understand what the Aramaic MAY have said (guess work, at best), or we accept that the Greek text is an acceptable translation of what was ACTUALLY said in Aramaic. I'm willing to do the latter.

As far as "Jesus [speaking] differently from OT Judaism" is concerned, you need to recognize that "OT" is the TANAKH: the Torah (the Pentateuch of Moses), the Navi'iym (the Prophets), and the Ketuviym (the Writings), the WHOLE Hebrew Bible at the time Yeshua` was here! That's what we call today the 39 books of the "Old Testament." And, Yeshua` said,

Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)

17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but TO FULFIL! 18 For verily I say unto you,

"'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot (the smallest Hebrew letter י yod) or one tittle ("hook" of a letter, such as in the dalet [ד d] to distinguish it from a reish [ר r]) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled!'

19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you,

"'That except your righteousness shall EXCEED the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven!'"

THAT'S "Jesus' teachings!"

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

...

Fundamentally we should all understand this point because very little Jesus taught is not also found in the OT!!! What Jesus taught was not new; it was true. He did not so much teach things new as he taught things correctly; the truths of the Tanakh as they were originally to be understood by His Father.

That's JUST what I've been saying!

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

Truths that were veiled. Truths that had long existed in veiled terms but revealed in the first century by Jesus' teaching. Sheol is not a place where the dead know nothing. The literal reading of that statement by Solomon is wrong. Jesus corrected that statement with the truth of that statement.

THIS part, however, is AGAINST the TANAKH! It's not that Yeshua` was "correcting" Shlomoh (Solomon); it's that WE must correct our understanding of "Hades!" The word "Hades," or rather, the Greek "hadees" (pronounced "hah-DACE"), means the "UNSEEN!" THAT'S the word that is used in Luke 16:23! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Greek god! It refers to the GRAVE where the dead are HIDDEN FROM VIEW! As such, it's a GOOD translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic word "sh'owl." The Hebrew/Aramaic word "sh'owl" means "asked about!" It's where children "ask about" their ancestors, when they come for a visit to the tomb or mausoleum! Yeshua`s parable of the rich man and Eleazar ("Lazarus") is about the RESURRECTION of the Unjust, found in Revelation 20:12-13!

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

Hell is not a place underground ruled by a lesser god because there is one ONE God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that Guy can destroy both body and soul. That Guy....? Every single human being will one day stand before that Guy in a body and face judgment. 

Yeah, no kidding. We've already covered that, but just to re-emphasize the point, the Greek translation has NOTHING TO DO with the Greek god! You are right when you say, "Every single human being will one day stand before that Guy in a body and face judgment," and THAT'S what we are seeing in Luke 16! Technically, however, you are also wrong when you say, "Every single human being will one day stand before that Guy in a body and face judgment," because it won't be "every single human being," and they don't "stand ... in a body." They will BE their bodies! It's better to say that they will BODILY stand before Yeshua` and face judgment, although that's somewhat redundant. How can "they stand" otherwise?

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

Except I do know what I am talking about. Examine the conjugations, Retro. It's air-breathed, not air-breathing. It's also immaterial because any emphasis on air-breathing" completely ignores the fact God's breath was also given to fish. Big huge ginormous inconsistency. You don't know what you're talking about. 

...

How can you resort to "conjugations" within definitions?! "God breathed" in the past, a one-time event, yes. However, the man BECAME a "living nefesh!" And, the Hebrew word nefesh is DEFINED in English as an "air-BREATHING creature!"

On 1/3/2021 at 2:36 PM, Josheb said:

...

Try this: Give me one more example of what you think qualifies as a disembodied spirit or soul. If I can show it's not actually disembodied will you let go of that premise and stop building on it? If not then don't bother me with an example. If so then all I ask is that you stick to your word and use all that wonderful knowledge you have in its proper context: the context of the always-embodied spirit and soul. Others will benefit. 

You're not hearing me correctly, if you think I believe this. There are NO examples of a "disembodied spirit or soul." Again, you've reverted to those same, fake definitions of "spirit" and "soul!"

[Retrobyter]

On 1/3/2021 at 10:45 AM, Josheb said:

Not only is some of that self-contradictory, but it is also untrue. The word is "being" not "soul." I completely agree. The term psuche wasn't what was used by Jesus. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek. We have no idea what word Jesus used. There's a hole in the middle of the argument claiming nephes and psuche are identical because we have no idea what wrod Jesus used. What we do know is Jesus taught an entirely different paradigm than those that prevailed in Sadduccean theology and Greek/Roman myth. Why people refuse to factor in what they know is unknown but those are the facts. 

Nephesh and psuche are not identical terms and they do not come from identical schemas. Can't acknowledge those facts and then act like it is irrelevant.
Jesus taught a completely different paradigm. Can't acknowledge that and then act like it is irrelevant. 
Scripture never provides us with examples of ideas posted in this op. Folks should acknowledge that and its relevance.
Those that do acknowledge such an absence cannot acknowledge it and then act like it is irrelevant. 
What the early believers understood was what Jesus taught. Can't acknowledge that fact and then act like it is irrelevant.
The tripartite view some here have asserted is not rooted in what Jesus taught but in Hebraic and Greek terms. Can't acknowledge that fact and then....
The tripartite view some here have asserted is rooted in the KJV and tradition and not what Jesus taught. Can't acknowledge that fact and then....

Shalom, Josheb.

You're just being overly sensitive. Aren't these YOUR comments? And yet, we DO know the word that Yeshua` used! He used the Hebrew/Aramaic word "nefesh!"

And, as I said, we DON'T HAVE the Aramaic version of what He actually said with that word! However, we INFER this to be true, because the evidence shows that ...

1. He was NOT speaking in Greek;
2. The people of His Land were speaking in Aramaic at the time; and ...
3. He was communicating with His countrymen!

Therefore, we conclude that He used the Aramaic - a dialect of Hebrew used in Aram or Syria that was also used in Persia to communicate with the Persians, some of whom understood Aramaic. And, the Aramaic word is the same in pronunciation as it is in Hebrew: nefesh! The letters LOOK different, but it's the SAME WORD!

And, because it's obvious to me that we need to refresh our memories, the Hebrew word "nefesh" (which is a noun) comes from the Hebrew root word (which is a verb), "naafash." The meaning of the word is neither "being" nor "soul," as is interpreted today. The word is "NEFESH!"

5315 nefesh (neh'-fesh). From naafash; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. Animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental)
-- any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

I substitute "an air-breathing creature" for "a breathing creature," for what else do we breathe? I also use "f" instead of "ph" for a "fei." I also use an "e" for a cegowl (a short "e" as in "bed") and distinguish between a pataach ("a," which says "ah" as in "father") and a qaamats ("aa," which says "aw" as in "saw").

5314 naafash (naw-fash'). A primitive root; to breathe; passively, to be breathed upon, i.e. (figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air)
-- (be) refresh selves (-ed).

Thus, the word means "an air-breathing creature." Now, if you want to extend it to the fish, then we might change that to "an oxygen-breathing creature," but that's all we'd have to do, because fish "breathe" the oxygen that has been dissolved in the water which goes into their mouths, passes over their gills, and exits through their gill-slits.

"Nefesh" and "psuchee" (using an "ee" for the eta, as opposed to the epsilon) are ONLY different in that they are from different languages and have different shapes to the letters and are pronounced differently. Otherwise, they are VERY close in meaning!

Yeshua` once responded to a Pharisee who was a lawyer (one who studied the Law of God through Moses):

Matthew 22:35-38 (KJV)

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 

36 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?"

37 Jesus said unto him,

"'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment."

This was a DIRECT QUOTE from Deuteronomy 6!

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (KJV)

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 

Moses said, "with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might," which are the Hebrew words, "bkhowl lVaaVkhaa, uwVkhowl naafshkhaa, uwVkhowl m'odekhaa." This translates directly into "in-all to-thy-core and-in-all thy-air-breathing-creature and-in-all thy-focus-(of-mind)."

Yeshua` was translated into saying, "with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," which are the Greek words, "en holee tee kardia sou kai en holee tee psuchee sou kai en holee tee dianoia sou." This translates directly into "in all of-the core of-thine and in all of-the air-breathing-creature of-you and in all the (focus-of the) mind of-thine."

Thus, the translator of Yeshua`s words for Matittyahu's (Matthew's) "Gospel" used "psuchee sou" to translate "naafshkhaa," which is "nefesh" with the 2nd-person, singular ending. "Sou" is the 2nd-person, singular pronoun in Greek.

(To be continued...)