I'm not wanting to derail this thread, but this should be the only verse you need: Job 7: 9-10 "9 As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so one who goes down to the grave does not return. 10 He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more."
The holy spirit has as much in common with a ghost or "spirit" as a kid with a sheet. If Jesus wasn't a regular living human being, he wasn't actually resurrected, flesh and blood. Doubting Thomas. The Bible has "soul" in English translations, but the Hebrew and Greek words are not soul. They are "entire being/creature" and "breath/heart/mind."
Elaborate on the different levels of the supernatural in one. Just what does omnipresent not actual being compare to? No shit in two. That is why there is a "translation," unless you think "breath" meant the air exhaled after a moistened and warmed air cycle. Jesus Christ, man.
1. Ghosts are not omnipresent or synonymous with a deity. 3. I am saying Jews don't believe in souls, despite the concept being inserted into English Old Testaments. It is a purely Christian concept that was developed in the early Church (like a lot of things), and then injected into older texts.
Just saw this and laughed out loud. My loving wife -- who knows literally nothing about alcohol -- brought home rum for my favorite spirit, rum and coke. And she brought... the Admiral. I partook, but paid. Boy did I pay.
The word used was spirit. Omnipresence is not common to all deity, specific or not, it cannot be said. The early Christians were Jews. The soul is an "idea," not a literal peice of anatomy. What the **** are you talking about?
How is this effing relevant? Is XXrt jewish? You asked VERSES from a Christian perspective and then brought up the precursor? I'm sorry you asked about '98 UT and then said they don't count since the first Tennessee team didn't have the foward pass. Get out of here.
What are you talking about? I'm saying the word "soul" or its equivalent doesn't exist in the original texts that Christianity is based on. It would be like saying the answer to who won the 1998 Championship game was the one with the highest judge's score. That isn't how it worked.
Again, Christianty has been a fluid, living religion. Whether or not the original had a concept of soul or not is immaterial to the present, and the beliefs of current Christians. I'll never understand why you hold religion to a strict and absolute set of viewpoints, from thousands of years ago... bet yet, as a man of science, don't practice alchemy.
When you think that all religion should be compared to its beginnings, and practiced as such, yea, we probably should. Would do you a bit of good to learn something about both.
Religion believes in great immutable truths. Yet it changes all the time. Science is based on the scientific method, which means what is "true" is constantly tested and changed to reflect the best available information. So comparing the two is useless in terms of how they have changed through time, since one of them is supposed to be the great unchanging truth of the universe.
The great truth didn't change. The understanding did. Think of it like this: God infallible. The people hearing his message are not. Where would you place the disconnect, in the message or those that wrote down the message?
So do ancient Hebrew texts specifically say "There is no such thing as a soul" or is it just unaddressed and then later brought up in Christian texts? If so, that isn't change.
