₦airaland Forum

@noetic,

noetic:
but what is d basis of your belief that a "spirit" is going to heaven, by parting ways with the body?

I believe that the Bible teaches that the "spirit" parts ways with the "body". Eccl. 12 v 7 shows that they do not go to the same place. Here are a few more:

James 2:26 -- the body without the spirit is dead

2 Corinthians 12:3 -- whether in the body, or out of the body

2 Corinthians 4:16 -- though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed

These are some texts that demonstrate that there is a difference between the body and the spirit - they are not the same in Scripture. If the spirit leaves the body, it goes back to God who gave it (Eccl. 12 v 7); and the body that is left is buried and decomposes.

noetic:
but where u changing position or what?

If I changed my position on what I offered, I surely would not have had to repeat it so many times, would I?

noetic:
u said initially that it aids our communication with God. so how does this aid, fly to heaven when man dies?

This is what I said:

[size=18pt]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters
in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him.[/size]

noetic:
stick with the issues, then u wont be confused.

With due respect, I have stuck with the issues here; and if anyone was confused, perhaps it's the one who is always asking the same questions that have already been addressed?

noetic:
God is everywhere, so where exactly are u talking about?
He lives in me.

I see. So. . . the spirits of dead men enter inside you?

Hehe. . . please look at Eccl. 12 v 7 - that should help you, bros!

noetic:
so please tell us where his spirit is, since he has a "spirit" that must go to heaven?

I hope you are not just buying time and hoping you had not read my answers already. Please open your Bible to Ecclesiates 12 v 7.

noetic:
your question is confusing. y? because u have u have 2 definitions for spirit
1) that aids communication to God
2)that is distinct and goes to heaven after death. so which of them are u refering to?

I would like you to not assume things - this is what I said:

[size=18pt]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters
in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him.[/size]

noetic:
until u answer the above, I can't answer this.

Lol. . . HOW MANY TIMES do you want me to keep referring you to my answers - which I have repeated again and again? Simply say you no wan answer, then we go rest this thread jo!

noetic:
no u havent. its not clear.

What is not clear to you?

noetic:
even in the other thread, u didnt give your own opinion of the issue, u just picked holes in someone else`s.

Oh com'on! I'm not a yoyo spinning on repetitions. I argued out my case and gave clear pointers to my persuasions - both in this thread and the other one! Haba!

noetic:
tell us in your own terms, without refrence to other people.I have offered the meaning of this verses in the relevant thread, u invited me to.please repost your questions.
yes it is.

My dear noetic, I was not quoting anyone when I said this:

[size=18pt]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters
in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him.[/size]

Those were my own words.

noetic:
good, now u re talking. but whats your stand on that "spirit"

This guy. . . na wah for you!! Now that you have finally seen my answers on the spirit, what is the meaning of your asking me again about what my stand is on the spirit again?!?

noetic:
the dead are in the grave called Hades.

I was coming to that - but because you were wont to complain about sticking to resurrection and sicussing nothing else, I haven't said anything yet about Hades, Tartarus, et al.

noetic:
if u know any spirit that ascended to heaven, tell us where it is written in the scriptures.

I ahve made clear that the word ascend was used contextually in Peter's address in Acts 2 in view of the resurrection. I did not by that assume that the resurrection had taken place, did I?

Besides, why is it so hard for you to be specific about what people have stated and not assume to read things into their posts?

noetic:
that he is in the grave, awaiting ressurection
noooooo.oku asked this earlier on, I said No.
of course not. neither does it say he "spirit" ascended to heaven
you are the only laughing. I c it as a fact.please read my post in the thread u invited me to.

I don't see what sense you have made in this unnecessarily long rejoinder. I do apologise, but I could say that 45% of your reposte is mere needless repetition over the same things that have been addressed again and again.

Could we see some more cogent discourse from you?

Enjoy.

@noetic,

This is getting really hilarious, and there doesn't seem to be any gist in your latest rejoinder other than the same old repeated innuendoes. Anyways, let me quickly run through them, leaving what is unnecessary to address due to unneeded repetition already addressed. Here:

noetic:
what then is your understanding of the spirit?

I already offered that:

[list][li]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him.[/li][/list]

If you have to come back asking again, let me reiterate it:

  [list][li]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him[/li][/list].

If again you would repeat the same question without carefully settling down to read through my rejoinders, here again is my answer:

  [size=14pt][list][li]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him[/li][/list].[/size]

Just so that you don't come back asking the same question like you paid no heed, here again:

  [size=18pt][list][li]It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him[/li][/list].[/size]


I would really appreciate that you carefully read through my rejoinders before asking THE SAME questions that are already addressed.

noetic:
but according to u, the "spirit has ascended into heaven. prove it.

Please quote me precisely. I only referred you to Ecclesiastes 12 v 7 for a start; and where I made reference to "ascended" in is connection with Peter preaching on the RESURRECTION in Acts 2.

I now understand why ricadelide wasn't amused that you were attributing things to him that he never stated. I really do not mind - but I would prefer that you make clear reference to what exactly I pointed out, so we don't muddle up issues.

noetic:
must u shout?

I wasn't shouting. I needed to emphatically appeal to you to please carefully go through people's rejoinders so you don't have to come back asking the same questions that are already addressed!

noetic:
their body or spirit? we have both examined the scriptures where we established that the dead are buried, u havent told of us where the spirit of the dead are seen dwelling in heaven.

What does Ecclesiastes 12 v 7 mean to you, noetic?

noetic:
but u since u also claim that spirit is distinct and not inherent in man. tell us where in the bible it is seen dwelling with God?

Yes, the spirit is DISTINCT from the body and soul - meaning that the spirit is not the same thing as the body or soul.

The word "distinct" as used in my rejoinders is simply = "not the same as".

That said, once again, the spirit is distinct from the body. . . meaning: the spirit is NOT the same thing as the body. They are DIFFERENT.

noetic:
so y are u saying it is distinct and it ascends to heaven?

My reason for distinguishing them is because the Bible distinguishes them - for example in 1 Thes. 5:23 and Hebrews 4;12. Please read them and see if there is NO DIFFERENCE made between the body, soul and spirit in scripture:

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God
your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto
the coming of our Lord Jesus.

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

Do those texts make the body the very same thing as the spirit?

@gists,

I should actually forebear; but a few things bring me back to respond to your summations.

gists:
The point is there were muslims before. That they were not officially called muslims (that's what I meant by "not by name" doesn't mean that there were none. And since they were not called so "officially" you can't expect to find the word muslim or islam in the Torah or bible. In the same manner you wont find the word christian nor christianity in the Torah since there were no christian at the time the Torah was reavelled. I'm not a very good teacher, but I hope you get the point.

I get your point.

However, whatever they were called (officially or unofficially), the point I made still stands: The Torah did not command the Jews to seek out Muslims (official or unofficial) and kill them whereever they are found. On the other hand, the Qur'an explicitly states by commandment that Muslims should kill Jews and Christians whereever they are found.

gists:
Many, lots of it. be sincere enough to take it as a challenge and research it. But even in the last verse I quoted (Q4:90), you'll find out that the muslims were attacked first. ,,,,,or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people Meaning that there were those who actually approached them with the exact opposite kind of hearts i.e intent

Do you care to share some of these "LOTS" of historical antecedents with us, please?

I do have my facts before I requested you to offer something to substantiate your point. I don't seem to be able to find anything in HISTORY where Jews and Christians actually FIRST attacked Muhammad before he launched his attacks on them.

gists:
Are you sure, please check well o before u make general statements. Check please

Okay, I logged out to re-check: and the facts remain the same. Do you have anything alternatively to offer?

gists:
I am sure you'll agree with me that their is freedom of speech (and posting), Belloti and everyone is free to post any topic in the forum as long as there are people who want to discuss such topic without being annoyingly distracted. However, NOBODY should dillute an existing thread with totally irrelevant posts -its rude in my opinion.

But wait. For the sake of fairness, why is belloti free to post wat others consider offensive; but Muslims can't endure the same thing served them?

gists:
Their is a thread titled "Islam the religion of doom" and I'm sure there are people who are interested in discussing it.

That thread is a recent one - and I'm sure that many Muslims were also offended even by its topic.

gists:
So let them discuss it without being distracted and let them satisfy themselves_{(I know it will not be productive because everybody has a mindset/opinion)}. I hope you get my point

I do get your point.

Shalom.

@amsky,

amsky:
@pilgrim1

why Grail messengers?do you know anything about them or the book?

I do.

@noetic,

You know, I just can't understand what's gwan!

It seems now we are tottering between three (3) opinions on Genesis 2 v 7!!

See what I mean between your persuasions and that expressed in Bobbyaf's:

#1 - Bobbyaf:

[quote author=Bobbyaf link=topic=60507.msg1856187#msg1856187 date=1200460151]
As was confirmed by Geneis 2:7

You see, Adam was not a dead soul before recieving the "breath of life". He was simply lifeless, not dead.[/quote]#2 - noetic:

noetic:
@ topic.

My opinion.

Soul and spirit:
In Genesis2:7 God breathed into man and he became a living soul, implying that before the breadth came into Adam, he was a dead soul

. . . <<snip>>

2)soul(psuche) a man physical life and consciouness, since I stated above that Adam was as good as dead without the breadth of life.

Oky, I'm not holding you down on anybody's persuasions - I don't intend to do so. I merely pointed it out so we all know that we have different views on what we discuss.

Enjoy.

Glad to see you, gentlemen!

I'm looking forward to a seasoned disucussion on the issues surrounding the components of man.

Cheers!

@ricadelide,

ricadelide:
@Pilgrim,
How's the going?

Bo, my bros - I'm doing ok. Given time off work today to settle in my new apartment. Your sister lazy and has been playing instead of cleaning!

ricadelide:
Actually, that wasn't my 0.1%.

I thought as much! When you finally land, food go don!

ricadelide:
When I noticed the direction the thread was progressing, I decided to mellow so as not to stifle the progression towards addressing the original issues in the first post since my post would have been in response to the questions I posed to Bobby.

Aye. The reason why I decided to follow up and post rejoinders to follow up the discussion was in view of that same fact - we have been waiting for Bbbyaf's answers to the simple questions you and longman83 offered. Seeing that they haven't helped matters much, I had to try and help the thread.

ricadelide:
I trust that you'd advance the topic in getting to that conclusion. I can already envisage another well-written five-part (A, B, C, D, E) treatise on the subject from your end .
Cheers

Lol. . . I never really start. Since we have been asked to "define" the spirit (I anticipated that query would show up sooner than later), I have done that already and also invited our dear discussants to proceed to the relevant threads where we could all further the discussion on the difference between the components of man - spirit, soul, body: what's the difference?

As for the parts A-E. . . lol, I am still your student O!

Cheers.

@noetic,

noetic:
@all

this people described here (below), where are they?

Rev. 6:9-10 - "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? "?

I thought u said they were in heaven?

(a) They could not have been in the GRAVE:

~ the grave is not the same place as the ALTAR:
"I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God"

(b) They could not have been on EARTH:

~ that is why they cried about those on earth:
"avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth"

If these people were in the graves, could you please kindly establih WHERE it says so?

@noetic,

noetic:
God`s throne and dwelling place is in heaven, since he existed before the creation of heaven, we can't say precisely where He dwelled then. Jesus came and said He lives is us, His future kingdom shall also be established on earth with us. not also forgetting that He is omni-prescent. so the dwelling place of God in my opinion is not the issue.

Hehe. . . more subjects are creeping in.

Okay. . first, you wanted us to stick with the "resurrection" and not make the distinctions between the components of man an issue. Right-O! We got the invitation to go to the appropriate thread and discuss that.

Next! It is not the distinctions that are in view - you appealed we look into the "resurrection'. Phew! We hear!

And now. . . it is not the dwelling place of God that is in view - heaven or otherwise!

Abeg, noetic. . . this is already spinning round.

The question again . . if I understand from the topic. . . mentions HEAVEN:

Do The Dead In Christ Go To Heaven Or Await Ressurrection?

We are clear that they go to God.

Now question: where is God - in HEAVEN. . . or ?!?

noetic:
the clarification is only important if it affects your anwer. answer the thread and give your reasons.

Done.

noetic:
please be more explicit as to what context u think peter was talking. I still don't get u.

But wait first, noetic. . . you're asking some fascinating questions O!

Please excuse me - I don't mean to laugh like that. But I have already provided the context - I said so a couple of times already!! See an example:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=104156.msg1847828#msg1847828 date=1200243621]^{Anyhow, please understand that what Peter said in Acts 2:34 ("David is not ascended into the heavens" is} in view of the the resurrection of Christ ("He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ" - v. 31). ^{You need to find out the context of the word "ascended" in that verse 34 before denying that David is presently with the Lord Jesus Christ - in} HEAVEN.[/quote]Again, I already did what you are asking again of me!

noetic:
yes he wasnt, but he never said david has a "distinct spirit" with God. to him david is dead and buried.

Nor did he say that David was a spirit in the sepulchre.

From the collective testimony of Scripture, are we agreed that the spirit of man goes back to God - yes or no?

~ If "YES", would David be an exemption to Eccl. 12 v 7??

~ If "NO" where is the "spirit" of david according to Eccl. 12 v 7?

noetic:
yes the "spirit" goes back to God. your individual interpretation of the "spirit" is what differs, and whether it is distinct.

Dear brother, I have offered a clear pointer in my previous rejoinders to demonstrate the distinction of the spirit, soul and body - they are not the same.

Second, I often try to remind you guys that the Bible shows that there is a distinction between those components by offering 1 Thes. 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. I also offered a few questions to help you guys come round this point - I don't see your answers anywhere.

noetic:
like I stated earlier, God has so many dwelling places, we need to establish takes that breadth of man meets him.

In all the places that God dwells, HEAVEN is not one of them? That being so, the "spirit" returns to God - whereever you assume He dwells. If that is not HEAVEN, please tell us where exactly it is!

noetic:
depending on what u call "spirit", there is no being in heaven John3vs13, so david is in his sepulchure.

Please go and read what I offered about the "spirit" of man - I just re-quoted it above.

John 3 v 13 is speaking in context of what I pointed out in Peter's sermon as re-quoted above again. (Please keep the ASCENSION in clear view - it is connected with the RESURRECTION)

noetic:
no he wasnt because he is not immortal.

I never made the case that Eccl. 12 v 7 applies ONLY to IMMORTAL persons (if there were any). In anycase, if he wasn't exempted, then what again have you been arguing? Does that not already establish the fact that you have only agreed with what you tried to disagree with at first?

noetic:
the sepulchre holds david. the onus is on u to prove that david has a distinct "spirit" in heaven.

Still on Eccl. 12 v 7 - is David exempted from that verse? Does that verse prove that the spirit of David is in the sepulchre?

noetic:
by my knowledge of the spirit,(please read my initial post to radecalide) the spirit is not distinct from the body. his return to God could mean
1) account his stewardship to God.
2)or his place among the dead in Hades.

Lol. . . the words in bold is funny! What - "the spirit is not distinct from the body"??

Lol does that mean that the body and the spirit are the SAME?

noetic:
I really want to hear your views.

cheers

I have been trying to share them best I could.

Enjoy.

@noetic,

noetic:
@pilgrim
honestly, thats irrelevant. y? because we said the dead are awaiting ressurection, tayo-d said their body is in the grave, and their spirit is in heaven. we countered that saying, no one is in heaven. man "spirit" and body is awaiting judgement in the grave. then d clarification of the spirit began.

I think you are hoping that the point I made is irrelevant; however, you only managed to clarify and buttress my point rather than establish that it was "irrelvant".

The whole crux of the matter here is on what exactly is the spirit of man - how does Scripture use it in its varied applications. If we can come to a concensus on this, the discussion on the resurrection would become clearer. To assume without qualification that both the body and the spirit are in the grave is the reason why we have again and again established the fact that they are NOT - offering that persuasion from Scripture.

Even Bobbyaf has referenced a verse that reminds us that at death, the body and the spirit of man are SEPARATED - please go and see it again: (Eccl. 12 v 7) - that verse does not hint that BOTH body and spirit remain in the grave!!

This is why we have taken the time to examine the meaning of the "spirit" of man as used in the Bible - and to suddenly assume that it is irrelevant for us to make that examination is quite unfortunate.

noetic:
u still did not answer d question do the dead in Christ go to heaven or await ressurection?

Please, noetic, please please and please: that question has been answered once too many times!! The dead in Christ go to HEAVEN - and if you never read that answer, what is the basis of the debate all this while?

noetic:
i m waiting.

Please do.

noetic:
u could help by first definig the spirit. that way we will understand better that the spirit goes to God.
and must that neccsarily mean Heaven?

Phew!!    WHAT have I been doing all this while other than that very thing - DEFINING the "spirit" of man, eh? Please go back and read it - for did I not say already in this wise:

It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters
in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him.

Lol. . . wait first. . . you sound like I never attempted to offer you a meaning anywhere about the "spirit" of man. Please go back and read my previous posts - excerpt:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=104156.msg1853560#msg1853560 date=1200399116]
<sup>One can readily see that spirit is distinct from breath; and both words in Hebrew as they appear in those verses are not the same:

(A) SPIRIT - רוּח (rûach)      

(B) BREATH - נשׁמה (n[sup]e</sup>shâmâh)[/sup]

^{The former ("spirit" - רוּח [rûach]) is used especially in reference to man as a rational being, including its [i.e., the spirit's] expression and functions (Strong's Concordance).} It is that part of man himself that is able to grasp spiritual matters in the things of God, as well as express intelligent worship to Him. <sup>This is clear in the following examples:

Isaiah: Isaiah 26:9
With my soul have I desired thee in the night;
yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early:
for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants
of the world will learn righteousness.

Mary: Luke 1:46-47
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Paul: 1 Cor. 14:14
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth,
but my understanding is unfruitful.</sup>[/quote]Em. . . did I offer a definition earlier or not?

@Carlosein,

Carlosein:
no i would not. but lawyer is first my brother before you are my sister-in-law, so if you say our family practices mariolatry (why do i always have difficulty typing this ), then we will have to sanction you

Lol. . . let him decide for himself. A man marries his wife - not his brother. And he that findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth favour of the LORD (Prov. 18:22) whereas a brother is born for adversity (Prov. 17:17)!!

Compare them!

Carlosein:
nwys, hope you are cool.

Well, I never see lawyer since una drag am commot for New Year celebrations. I wonder when he go gee me shout for phone sef!

Okay, I cool!!

@gists,

gists:
Please read my post and understand expecially the one in red fonts

In what significant way have you tried to establish any difference from the same point I pointed out earlier? Whether in name or not, Muslims scholars have always tried to noise it in our ears that there were Muslims BEFORE the emergence of the Jewish nation - or they would not have been speaking of another Abraham, would they?

gists:
Yet a gain you have quoted just one verse of the Quran as usual why not take the pain and a little time to read from verse 87 to 90 you'll discover that Allah was talking about those who came to fight the muslims (whoever they are/were, be it christian, jews, idol worshipers etc) the buttom line is they came with the intent to wipe the muslims out and the muslims have the right to defend themselves.

When I was a Muslim, that was what we were misled into believeing. Please show us WHERE in history it ever was that CHRISTIANS and JEWS ever came to fight Muhammad and his comnpanions? Was it not rather the other wya round - Muhammad wnet directly to them and belligerently sought to sack them from their own land - UNPROVOKED!!

gists:
Q4:90 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah HATH OPENED NO WAY FOR YOU (to war against them).

Tie this to your claim just addressed above - where did Christians and Jews come to wage war with Muhammad BEFORE he attacked them? Please simply be honest - that's all I ask.

gists:
My sis, please take note of the last part of that verse which says Allah HATH OPENED NO WAY FOR YOU (to war against them). Meaning that their is chance for peace if only there are no aggressors. There are countless evidences in history where christians and Jews peacefully coexisted both under the leadership ofprophet Muhammad (SAW) and later under various Islamic leaders. On the contrary, there are many verses in the bible where God supposedly commanded Moses to UTTERLY DESTROY, SPEAR THEM NOT etc even children and women.

All the same, up until this very day, Muslims have been emigrating to non-Muslim nations - and they have been welcomed, benefitted, and no one has ever thought of maltreating them.

Please show me from HISTORY that Muhammad only sought to attack Jews and Christians after he was attacked by them. That's all I ask.

gists:
I know you have a mindset about Islam which is a pretty urgly one. And I pressume (from past experience with xtians on nairaland) that you will retain that mindset no matter how hard we try.

I'm sorry that you are wrong. I do not ave a mindset plastered with hate against anybody - Muslim, Christian, atheist, free-thinker, Hindu, Mormon, Bhuddist, Grail Messengers, or anyone at all.

What actually interests me is simple acknowledgements of facts. State them simply - and it matters not whoever you are, and I would simply acknowledge them. That's all I ask. It has nothing to do with mindset or no.

gists:
what I had in my post is "You said it your self the way the Quran vies christians and Jew in your post" Its supposed to be VIEWS for that, I appologise for not reading through before posting hence the typos.

I am sorry and apologise. I also make many typos when typing in haste. I apologise again.

gists:
Your relative recent entry is no fault of yours. A quick check at the total number of post I have proves that I'm a new poster too. Just that it can be annoying to see a topic like "Bounties Of Jannat" and all you see upon clicking is xtian hate all over. And as if those that are casting the stones are saints.

Okay, I understand your persuasions - and I agree with you that such things could really be annoying (even though I am no longer a Muslim).

On the other hand, please go through the motherboard, and you will have to ask yourself why the same poster (oga belloti) opened another thread to "prove" WHY CHRISTIANITY IS WRONG!! Lol. . . I don't know how many people have actually been put off by that topic as well.

Enjoy.

@carlosein,

Carlosein:
pilgrim, pilgrim:

have seen these so many times my head spins.

nothing new for this new year

Lol. . . I know it was a repeat - and I said so before:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=100699.msg1859657#msg1859657 date=1200557883]. . .When I was pushed to post something, this was the small one I posted in another thread:[/quote]Like I also said, this na New Year! I no wan lose my love for my darling lawyer. He has warned me that any rascal innuendoes from me this year - e go just pack my load and throway me outside im doormot! You will not like that to happen to madam bloviate, would you?!?

@noetic,

noetic:
logically u divided man into 3. body, spirit and soul. and emphasised that the spirit is distinct from the body as butressed by pilgrim and ricadelide who stated that the spirits has feelings, could be troubled and excited et all.
to understand my position on spirit better, please read my post addressed to ricadelide.
then answer this is there any biblibical expression where the body and the spirit did differnt things at the same time, since they are distinct?
<<snip>>

I sat for an exam, and didn’t write well in the exam, for just no reason, because I know d course in question and read well for it. After the exam, I exclaimed to my friends that “my spirit is troubled” apparently because of how the exam went. Whats the basis of the statement?
Is this statement “my spirit is troubled” valid or invalid? Yes or no

If you answer No, what then was the basis of paul`s spirit being troubled, weak, angry like u guys biblibically emphasised? Or was Paul being sacarstic? Or did u quote him out of context?
If u answer yes. Then I ask, who wrote the exam, my body or spirit? If my spirit is angry what is the reaction of my body, since u say they are distinct?

noetic:
But If u insist on this distinct “spirit”, lets then examine this scenario.

The simple premise here from which you seem to be launching your recent discourses is hinged on the word "distinct".

Please understand here that the word distinct simply means that the "BODY" is not the same thing as the "SOUL" or "SPIRIT".

That is all there is to the meaning of the word "distinct".

You seem to have rather stretched that word to connote things that are simply spiralling away from the simple core concerns of the present discussion. To me, it seems you're trying to advance the idea that the body must be connected with the spirit of man in order for either of them to even EXIST at all. Please correct me where I may be wrong - and I gracefully acknowledge same.

However, we could appreciate a clear focus of this discussion if we all try to keep our ideas as neatly as could be managed. In which case, I would ask: is the body "distinct" from the soul and spirit of man or NOT?

noetic:
Please draw a line between the body and spirit, since u claim they are distinct.
However, u cannot explicitly explain what u haven’t defined.

I think your request has already been cogently attended to - and for the life of me, no one would really be interested in a repeat session.

I would simply leave you with this fact: the Bible makes a distinction between the SPIRIT, SOUL and BODY of man (1 Thes. 5:23); also, to demsontrate that they are "distinct", the same Bible speaks clearly of the "dividing asunder of soul and spirit" in Hebrews 4:12. Could we read from you what you make of those verses? WHY would the apostle be speaking of a "dividing asunder of soul and spirit" if they were NOT "distinct" from one another?

noetic:
You could start by answering what is man`s spirit?

That was the very reason why I have tried to invite you guys over to the other thread - as earlier:

I had hoped that the issue of distinguishing between the components of man would have been discussed at length in an appropriate thread - Spirit, Soul and Body - What's The Difference?. Bobbyaf, noetic, olabowale. . . any luck of seeing you guys there with seasoned entries?

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-104156.32.html#msg1853599)

Cheers.

@mazaje,

How body?

Isn't it ironical that something is actually troubling you? Why all the unnecessary over-reaction if you are at peace with yourself?

Job 8:7 -- Though thy beginning was small, yet thy latter end should greatly increase.

@viee,

Please, this New Year, no be fight. This is what I simply wanted to point out in Uzzyman's:

Uzzyan:
For the MARIANIST my dears in Christ we have never and will never in our service to God worship MAry

My rejoinder was simply to point out that he was stating a false idea. Is that not simple enough?

If you were making any sense at all, what held you back from logically following through with your concluding statements here:

viee:
Bla bla bla bla
. . .

at the end it is just : bla bla bla bla

At the end, it is NOT just bla bla bla.

Please have the decency of acknowledging very simple issues. That way, it makes sense readily to readers, and not your wishing that it could be when you haven't made any sense.

All the same, don't get your feathers ruffled. It's a small world.

Cheers.

focused:
Before you sleep, make sure you suck yourself in the blood of Jesus.

SOAK!

Typos - we all make them!

viee:
Bla bla bla bla
question is who is a born again?
im yet to hear another phrase that has been so abused!
if you happen to know the definition of that phrase, pray tell are you one?

Catholics worship Mary, Catholics are demons, Catholics are anti-Christ,
since some of us are bible scholars and can tell how best to worship God
how has it impacted in your life?
the life of your family and friends?
the environment?

at the end it is just : bla bla bla bla

@viee,

There's no need for your over-reactions. If you were getting unsettled from what was posting just previosuly to yours, then I would have hoped to see how you guys corrected Uzzyman. FACTS are there - Catholics HAVE WORSHIPPED MARY!!

Talk about impact of Biblical truth upon people's lives - if it was not for the fact that the same Biblical trutjhs forced Catholics to start questioning their own doctrines on MARIOLATRY, not many of you would have been able to stand in public to deny that Catholics worship MARY. WHY? Because the heresy would still have continued unabated - and no one would argue against the FACT.

That is what IMPACT truly is. Because these Biblical truths were been impressed upon Catholics, that is why so many of them made a push to hide the fact about their worshipping MARY.

@gists,

gists:
@pilgrim.1 I'm sorry this is not very intellectually challenging.

It may be so for you; because I haven't read anything intellectually sound in your rejoinders so far except the fact that you keep spinning the same otiose remarks and not being able to clearly distinguis between the various groups of people you try to discuss between the Qur'an, the Bible and the Jewish Torah.

gists:
The first two verses could not have existed because their were no muslms then (at least by the name)

Thank you for confirming once again that Muslims have no consistent position in their convictions. Is it not Muslims themselves who have argued that there were MUSLIMS before Muhammad? Is it not Muslim scholars that have been propagating the same idea that the FIRST Muslim was ADAM (some say Abraham). Which one of these schgolars seems to be deceiving themselves?

So, let me guess: there were no Muslims during the era I pointed out; but your Qur'an assumes that there were Muslims already before the emergence of the Jewish nation?

Are you quite in need of a redaction here?

gists:
and I don't know about the third verse you're talikng about in the Quran.

A nice way of suddenly making out that you no longer remember the teaching of the Qur'an. Let's juggle your memory with just one of such numerous verses:

Qur'an 4 v 89

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve,
that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends
from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah;
if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever
ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them

Who exactly was the Qur'an asking Muslims to kill WHEREEVER they are found?

gists:
You said it your self the way the Quran vies christians and Jew in your post

Please carefully look again in your statement. You may only be so desperate to wish away the facts that you begin to sound a bit mixed up. Is the Qur'an actually vying Christians and Jews - where did I say so in my posts? Or were you so desperate to hope that you will find it there?

gists:
He probably left because of the heap of hate yoou gys are spilling all over.

Calm down. Please go to the appropriate thread and see things for yourself. My dear shawn123 was typically trying to ridicule the Bible - and I only helped him clear his false assertions. That was all. I hoped indeed that he would come back and let us discuss what he had asserted - and again I say: I am still waiting.

If he was only interested in a genuine discussion, even when he does not agree with Christians, he could easily tender his persuasions without deliberately seeking to castigate Christians and the Bible. How does it happen that when Muslims start their own hate, they are barely able to stand up and endure the same things they began?

gists:
I left too you know.

I'm sorry - I didn't know that; and you may forgive my relative "recent" entry to the Forum (perhaps after you had been long on it). I could not have known.

gists:
And their's nothing to show you. The onus is on you to provide prove tho butress your accusations.

There is plenty you could show IF and only IF you had anything to show. Because you simply had nothing, I could not expect anything from you.

Where I needed to demonstarte anything in my assertions, I have tried to do so. Many Muslims who are not happy to read the facts have alleged that I was lying. I have asked them several times to please help point out where and why they think so. . . I am still waiting UP UNTIL TODAY!! They have never been able to demonstrate their accusations against me. Is something really wrong with Muslims?

gists:
Cos they were out-numbered and out-equipped. I beleive Bro Olabowale has provided sufficient explanations to that.

Lol. , perfect excuse. Olabowale had no clues, and if that is what makes you happy, too bad that you only satisfy yourself with sad excuses.

On the contrary, Jesus would not encourage them to fight with swords - He was not staging a JIHAD!! Go back and read clearly that He was not relying on mere men to fight for Him IF He ever needed anyone to defend Him in warfare! See it for yourself:

Matthew 26:52-53 -- Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Did you miss the fact He was not asking or staging a JIHAD? Read the context again, gists. I am not trying to quarrel with you - just simply asking you not to read your pretexts into the verses you have snatched out of their contexts.

gists:
And you think mathew and luke are part of the OT?

Calm down. Where did I ever think so? Are you so desperate, gists?

gists:
I stand to be corrected I tot the NT is comprises of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, 2Corinthians, Galatians bla, bla, bla. Or have they been REVISED to the OT now?

Where did I mix up the OT and NT? That is all I ask. Please quote me precisely, thank you.

gists:
My sister please get this right now, Jesus could not have been addressing the christians because he never saw them!!

Please save the excuses. I clearly mentioned that He was addressing the JEWS. The point you have been pushing was that the EXODUS texts you quoted was supposed to have been a CHRISTIAN law - and that was the reference I wanted you to clarify. Don't try to save face immediately by circling round it to bring another arguement about whether Christians existed at that time or not. If you so wish, please open a thread and let us discuss that matter subsequently. Do you wish to?

gists:
Christianity/christians only came into existence about 40yrs after Jesus left. Its somewhere in the acts. The point is if you guys are sincere with yourself and Jesus as you claim to follow his teaching, you would do as he says and not try to manipulate and embelish a direct sentence.

Well, for one, we as Christians actually follow what He taught. He did not ask anyone to go kill Muslims - and if you find a verse for that in the Bible, let us know. Second, he clearly said He was the Son of God - should we be hypocrits to deny that one as well as Muslims have done while you sit there asking us to be sincere?

gists:
You only re-enact something that is dead/dormant. The law was always their, it just needs to be fulfilled. Hence, he came to fulfill them!! the words of Jesus are correct yet again

The word "re-enact" points to laws that are in existence but have not been IMPLEMENTED! Go check it out. Jesus did not come to RE-ENACT the Mosais Law, although He used it effectively to show the Jews their own departure from the WORD of God.

If Jesus came to re-enact the Mosaic Law, then certainly He would have asked Christians to do things like:

~ stone anyone who worked on the Sabbath day!

~ stone a woman caught in adultery!

Please go study the NT, see how it applies the OT, and then let's have a genuine discourse. I don't see how you have demonstrated the meaning of Jesus coming to fulfill the LAW and PROPHETS other than you snatching those words out of context.

If you want to follow a systematic and genuine discussion on the subject, I would most gladly oblige you, gists.

Have a pleasant day.

@Uzzyman,

Uzzyan:
For the MARIANIST my dears in Christ we have never and will never in our service to God worship MAry

I'm not so sure that you really know what you are talking about. I have tried to restrain myself from furthering this discussion; but please, please, and please, do NOT make statements that you have no clues about.

Catholics HAVE ALWAYS WORSHIPPED [size=14pt]MARY[/size] . . . until many Catholics began to complain under pressure from being challenged by especially Protestants!

I have hinted that Catholics should PLEASE go and sit down and read through their archives and discover what the POPES and BISHOPS have boldly stated about their Catholic worship to MARY. Have you guys done that? When I was pushed to post something, this was the small one I posted in another thread:

---

@topic: Do Catholics actually Worship Mary Mother Of Jesus


Worshipping MARY - did YOU know?

E[/b]xcerpts from the "[b]Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of [size=14pt]Pope Pius XII[/size]:

[center][list]

34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which [size=16pt]from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion[/size]. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

[/list][/center]

[list]Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].[/list]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My small kweshun now is: IS there proof or not that the Popes have indicated that they WORSHIP Mary - "heavenly mother"?

---

For Catholics to claim that they have NEVER and will NEVER worship MARY is simply to pretend that the FACTS have been forgotten only too soon!

@gists,

gists:
I expect you to provide the ans. because its in your book stated by your 1/3God. Maybe we should go memory lane and check the attrocities that were done by the early church leaders AGAINST THEIR FELLOW CHRISTIAN brethrens --so much for a peaceful religion._{sorry don't have time for that now}

The world over, Muslims have proven that Islam is a violent religion by default. Even if the clerics on either side were to follow precisely what was commanded them in their holy writs, this is how it stands:

    ~ there are no verses in the Torah for Jews to kill Muslims

    ~ there are no verses in the Bible for Christians to kill Muslims

    ~ both in the Qur'an and Hadiths, 'Allah' commands MUSLIMS everywhere
       to kill BOTH Jews and Christians.

You may search till Muhammad turns in his grave for verses for the first two cases; but we don't need to look hard for verses for the thrid case.

gists:
If you're refering to the spirit of the trinity, then I completely agree with you that I don't have it and guess what I DON'T WANT/NEED IT!!

Very sad. As a Muslim, that would mean that Muhammad's doctrines of a human soul and body (plus the spirit) is a mere hogwash - and you certainly do not NEED such a waste from him either!

gists:
and I certainly won't waist my precious time time trying to understand a corrupted/fabricated and rank xeroxed collection books/letters

No worries - the Qur'an is a classic collection of Arabian tales. The last time a Muslim (shawn123) tried to wave the lie in our face that the Qur'an has been exactly as Muhammad received it wthout a change anywhere in dot or letter, I simply requested him to turn his gaze to the facts. I am still waiting since the last time he logged out.

gists:
You guys are either a bunch of hypocrites, or unbelievably naive or you just don't read/understand your bible as you proclaim.

Thank you. For all of that, the Qur'an disproves your vexations - for it is the same Qur'an that respects Christians are people who are "devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5 v 82). We do read our Bibles - maybe that's what is frustrating you so much.

gists:
I delibrately stopped at that verse. Now please read further to verse 38 (i.e Luke 22:38 and for God's sake read from verse 1 to get the whole picture). I'm sure you'll be surprised that THEY ACTUALLY GOT PHYSICAL SWORD!!

Did you read the whole picture to understand that Jesus NEVER meant that they should get physical swords? WHY, O WHY did He not encourage them to use it when they weilding the swords?

gists:
Dav, read my previous posst again, I quoted verses 1-9 so we won't run the risk of quoting the bible oout of context. I didn't just quote verse 4 like most of you would pick a verse in the quran.

Many times we quote groups of verses from the Qur'an - not pick verses here and there as you suggest. Even when you assume that Dav was quoting the Bible out of context, you have not demonstrated a coherent explication of what you are quoting; rather, you are forcing your own pretext into the texts and hoping that others would buy into your cheap offer.

gists:
Makes it even more weighty!! We're talking about a commandment in the OT (which many of you have turned away from) that is being referenced and quoted by your lord in the NT.

That is why +osisi has asked you to please show where in the NT we as Christians are commanded to kill anyone for cursing father or mother. Have you found the verse? The point is that Christians do not need to CURSE their parents - go figure; and if you study the verses you are referencing,m you'd find that the CONTEXT is towards the JEWS, for Jesus was addressing JEWS and not CHRISTAINS!

gists:
Common this is the height of hypocracy and double-standard and it stinks because you reject what Jesus said expecially when he used the word MUST.

The hypocrisy is in Muslims who argue that Jesus was making an express command to CHRISTIANS in the referred verses where He actually was addressing the JEWS in quoting EXODUS! The hypocrisy is in Muslims trying to force their own pretexts into the Bible and then hola that they have been quoted out of context when the same Muslims obviously are the ones tearing the verses out of their contexts. The hypocrisy is further highlighted in Muslims who try to force their ideas of Muhammad into Deuteronomy - and when that fallacy was exposed, they hypocritically turned again to attack the same Biblical scriptures they had once quoted for Muhammad!

gists:
Remember what he said in Matthew 5:17-18 that he didn't come to abolish the laws but to fulfill them and now saying this again. Talk about a consistent and rightous man

Neither did He say that He came to re-enact the LAW. The fulfilling of the LAW is not the same thing as trying to re-enact, re-impose, or re-introduce the LAW. He came to fulfill the LAW - and He Himself demonstrated that He had done so after His resurrection (Luke 24:44). The consequence of His having fulfilled the LAW was that the Gospel could then be preached to ALL NATIONS so that everyone could be freely forgiven and receive the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@recadelide: The JWs are Christians, just like you the methodist or Anglican, etc!

Even when it comes to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the JW do not hold the same persuasion as the Methodists or Anglicans. This is why you need to drop your preconceived notions and get a good grasp of what you have always assumed.

In the same way, one may say that your own denomination will suffer the same fate as all the other 72 sects in Islam that you consigned to Hellfie for not belonging to your sect!! Are they not Muslims as well - even though some of them have taught that 'Allah' might have had a beginning (e.g, the Hanafiya sect).

If you don't like to read these facts, then do yourself the favour of not seeking to always deride Christians.

olabowale:
The deity of the lord and the doctrine of godhead, both of the Chrisrians are just what it is fables, fallacies, fairy tales.

Thank you. Please start with Isaiah 9:6 and let us know what Muhammad thought about the prophet Isaiah. No long drama - just start from there and let us know WHY Muhammad was to scared to mention that prophet - even though in Muhammad's day that verse remained as it has ever been penned, and he knew that the Jews held Isaiah as a genuine prophet of God.

When you are done, we shall see who the fable-fabricator in the Qur'an actually is.

olabowale:
There is no deity other than God the Supreme Creator. And there is no godhead, what we have is God Almighty alone, in His Supreme splendor. To have anything else, is pure disbelief!

If having anything else is pure disbelief, what are Muslims doing with Muhammad's Sunnah (the Hadiths)? Did Muhammad not proclaim that he has given more commandments and prohibitions than Allah gave in his Qur'an? Where was your "Almighty Creator" when Muhammad was making such rants?

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@Kalokalo: Thanks for trying: My dear brother Kalokalo thinks he is explaining Spirit, Soul and the body of a living person. I simply asked anyone to explain to me if when soul is removed from the three, thereby we have two remaining, the spirit and body, will the person still be living? Capable of talking, eating, yawning, etc? The above is his rendition of the explanation!

Is it such a difficult thing for you to acknowledge that answers have already been provided by several people to your questions?

We have already stated clearly that the soul survives the death of the body with verses from the Bible. Check them again and see the discussions in the relevant threads for the following: [1 Kings 17:21-22; Luke 16; Revelation 6:9-10].

olabowale:
I also wonder if when spirit is removed and we still have soul fused with the body, will the body and soul still be a living being, capable of talking, eating etc?

Where did you get the idea of a soul fused with the body?

olabowale:
In Islam, the spirit that is the breadth of life in people is soul!

There is something TERRIBLY wrong here.

(a) In Islam, the spirit is NOT the "breath of life". Please show us just where in Islam you found this - or whether you are speaking of another innovative Islam that was strange to Muhammad's version.

(b) To equate the "spirit" (the breath of life) to the "soul" is to actually make the "spirit" the same as the "soul". That may be okay with your thoughts on Islamic teaching; but that should not be used to adjudge the doctrines of other people. QED.

What you have just stated is the same thing as saying:

"spirit" (aka "breath of life" = "soul"

. . . and it would have the same effect as saying:

"soul" = "spirit" (aka "breath of life"

(i.e., since the "spirit" is the same as "breath of life", then:
"soul" is the same as "breath of life"!)

Do you see how confused and incoherent your ideas are?

When you state your opinions or persuasion in a public Forum, you should expect people to read intelligently what you are stating. they will ask questions where you are NOT clear! If your premise falls apart when scrutinized, it is because it was untennable from the onset. Meanwhile, we would be delighted to see where in Islam you got the idea that: "a soul fused with the body".

olabowale:
When a person is alive his soul is a spirit that is alive. When the soul is separated from his body, the spirit is not alive in the body anymore and of course, the person is dead and all you have is a lifeless body.

That's alright. Islam may assume that the soul is the spirit; but that is not what the Biblical prophets taught, I hope you know that? The Biblical prophets knew that there was a difference between the soul and spirit - that is why you don't find them using the words interchangeably to assume what many people assume and yet fail to discuss when questioned.

On the other hand, the spirit out of the body is NOT "dead". It exists, albeit in quite a different kind of experience altogether.

olabowale:
In reality, soul in man is the spirit in man. Both are the same thing!

Lol. . . I hope readers can see that classic quote - because as we progress, you will soon withdraw that statement! It's a deal!

olabowale:
Human being has just two components, body, the physical part and the spiritual part which is the soul.

I'm sorry, but that is not what Islam teaches. If there are only just two components (soul and body); where is the "spirit" of man? I know you tried to make "soul" the same as "spirit"; but that is not what Islam teaches.

Second, please understand that even animals have souls; and I'm sure you're not trying so hard to reduce man to the same plane of animals?. What make's man unique in his composition?

Third, if you push this idea of man comprising just two components, then you are effectively saying that the message of Islam has no bearing with any part or revelation of the Jewish or Christian scriptures. WHY? Because it would become clear for all to see that Muhammad and his doctrines simply disregarded the revelations of the same OT scriptures that the Qur'an mentions!

olabowale:
Both have to be attached for a person to be alive.

Nope, for the body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26); but the spirit can survive out of the body ("whether in the body, or out of the body . . he was caught up into paradise" - 2 Cor. 12:3 & 4).

The body experiences life purely in a physical plane; but when the spirit departs, the body is "dead" - however, the spirit lives apart from the body.

olabowale:
There is no way spirit can be attached to the body, and there is no soul in the body. There is no way soul can be attached to the body, and there is no spirit in the body.

Hmm. . . this is more cacophony than the previous lines.

olabowale:
Spirit and soul are just one entity!

We shall see soon.

olabowale:
And the way it is not the flesh that dies.

Uh-oh!! Lol. . . so the body actually does not die, you mean? Unless you meant to say again that "flesh" and "body" are not the same in your context, althought "Spirit and soul are just one entity". Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

You are really buying time, aint you? Well done. Let me show you how very smart you think you are:

Bobbyaf:
I want to hear from you as to what happens to the wicked man when he dies? What happens to his spirit?

If you did not know what happens to the spirit of the wicked man when he dies, then what did you mean by the spirits of ALL PERSONS going back to God in this quote:

Bobbyaf:
We know that all persons who die that their spirits go back to God.

Did you detract there to assume that the spirits of ALL persons would subtract those of the wicked? I simply want to know how you want to play this game before I walk you out tying your shoelace. If your "ALL" includes the wicked, what is the question again?

Bobbyaf:
Since you are the one that advocates a spirit that somehow is aware and conscious, then is the spirit of the wicked who dies also conscious and aware?

Tell us Pilgrim!

I would like you to quote me directly - and then perhaps you will see why this game of yours is not helping you gain anything. If you care for a genuine discussion, please offer the same.

Scuttling around these excuses when you are yet to address the several pointers that have been offered you is no way to demonstrate that you truly have a grip on your persuasions. I simply would like to see you discuss rather than offer excuses.

Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Save yourself the expliquee. An interplay of words used here in the passage no doubt is unique, but it doesn't change the real definition of what the soul really is. Its an expression that describes the composite existence of man and animals. Another rendition (NKJV)puts it this way,

I beg you, Bobbyaf. . . it is that very thing that we are after: the REAL definition of the "soul" of man. QED. It is not a play of words or a pun - Scripture did not so use the word, neither does your suggestion there apply. Please go back and do a study before assuming what the text does not say!

Bobbyaf:
1 Kings 17:21 And he stretched himself out on the child three times, and cried out to the LORD and said, “O LORD my God, I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.” 22 Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived.

1 Kings 17:21(NIV) Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!"

Do you realize that you are the one jumping on interplay of words? Let me show you how your idea does not make any coherent sense:

The word in that verse for soul is the Hebrew word  נפשׁ  (nephesh) - the very same word used for "soul" in Genesis 2 v 7 that you ahve quoted several times already. Now if we try to interpolate the words and substitute "life" for "soul" in Gen. 2:7, this is how your own suggestion stands:

Genesis 2:7
Reading it with the Hebrew word  נפשׁ  (nephesh), it stands like this:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul [נפשׁ (nephesh)].

But if we pally to your interplay of word, we have the same Genesis 2:7 read as --

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living life [נפשׁ (nephesh)].

Hehe. . . how do you like that?    Not even your own NIV makes the mistake of sounding it with your suggestion!! The Hebrew word in both verses (Gen. 2:7 and 1 Kings 17:21) are the same [נפשׁ (nephesh)] - please try and verify them. What does this mean to YOU, Bobbyaf?

Please dear Bob. . . humility - you hear? Go read the Bible carefully O!

Bobbyaf:
For the first passage notice the big difference in meaning between "into him" and "back to him"

What difference does it make? "Into him" - "back to him" . . . does the Bible suggest the soul returned to the child and stayed OUTSIDE his body? Reading your rejoinders makes me wonder if you are so desperate to hang onto ideas thar are simply not there for the sake of semantics.

The child's SOUL returned into his body - it was not hanging outside his body when it retruned to him.

Bobbyaf:
For the second rendition I don't need to say what the word soul means. Its what I have said before. Soul means life in that particular context.

Deal with the topic, thank you.

Bobbyaf:
It was nowhere! Its just an expression. When a person dies the soul has no reason to exist, since its just another word to describe that person who still has the breath of life or spirit in him.

I didn't see how you explained the verses I cited [1 Kings 17:21-22; Luke 16; Revelation 6:9-10] to demonstrate that the soul survives the death of the body. Do you care to exegete those verses?

Bobbyaf:
Not all parables should be taken literally. Imagry used by Jesus, as was the custom of most biblical writers, was never meant to be taken seriously. Don't focus on the metaphoric imageries, rather focus on the deeper meaning of what Jesus desired to point out. Do you really believe that one drop of water will be able to quench the thirst of anyone? Do you really believe that vast amount of people will be resting in the bosom of Abraham? Parables carry an idea, that usually carries more significance that the imageries used to represent such ideas.

If to you a parable has no value, then Heaven and Hell are simply of no value to you. That is as simply as I want to state it - until you have the humility to open another thread and let me seriously demonstrate why this rascal attitude of denigrating the parables is as rebellious as can be. Please oblige me.

Bobbyaf:
Its your interpretation versus anyone elses. The book is in most cases highly symbolic. Sometimes John spoke in tenses that seemd historic, but had to do with furure actions. The event that took place vis a vis the souls actually took place after John's time. In vision God took him forward to the event. He saw the souls of those who lived during the time of the persecutions during the dark ages.

Rather than scuttle it under the carpet of that excuse, please offer us something more cogent. Serious discussions do not tender to exculpations - and I'd be delighted to see you clearly elucidate your persuasions rather than offer excuses and leave no alternative exgesis on those verses.

Bobbyaf:
I just gave you a few above.

I repeated my request above with those verses. Could you go one step further than the terse exculpations?

Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
@ Pilgrim

I am glad you have given a definition rather than what you think soul means.

I have always tried to stick with the clear exegesis of scripture.

Bobbyaf:
The spirit, The bible uses both interchangably.

In order words, the Bible uses the "spirit" for "breath" and obfuscates or blurs issues between them the way we read in your posts?

Bobbyaf:
I don't have to Pilgrim. Open your eyes. Didn't Genesis say man "became' a living soul? Why waste time asking the obvious?

Until you stop dribbling and have a grip on a particular premise in what you are stating, I will continue asking the same question to bring you to a particular reference point. The bible does not throw ambiguous ideas the way we read in yours - that is why I asked, so that we don't misread you. Please be very particular.

Bobbyaf:
Has Satan decieved the likes of the Hindus, Bhuddists, and others, including some christians that teach that the soul of man is eternal?

The Hindus, Bhuddists and others do not hold the Christian doctrine on the "soul". Even if you are convinced that they are satanically deceived, humility is a great virtue to observe and not push yourself into assuming a superiority position that only ducks a particular reference point.

You have not been able to hold a clear reference in your discuss; and until you do, please have the humility to simply share your ideas and let us discuss.

Bobbyaf:
I was the one who reminded one and all that Ezekiel said that "the soul that sinneth shall die" The soul of mankind is mortal and is subject to death, and that is why my so-called agenda is in keeping with Holy Writ. I take pride in pushing a biblical agenda.

I have offered explanations as to what exactly Ezekiel was pointing to - that was why I gave numerous verses from both the OT and NT as to his application of the word "soul". It is one thing to "remind" us what a prophet said; quite another thing to exegete what he has said.

Bobbyaf:
The soul is simply a descriptive expression, not an internal entity to be survived or separated from the body after death. That is why Ezekiel said the soul that sins shall die, which means it shall cease to exist, unless God restores the spirit or breath of life, causing the soul, or being, or creature, or person to come back to life.

Which is precisely why you simply have no clues what 1 Thes. 5:23 and hebrews 4:12 have said!! How many times have you been asked to comment on those verses - and you always came back saying you are not sure what you want to read by those verses!

Besides, I have also explained that the soul survives death - or please explain what those verses I cited are pointing to, thank you.

Bobbyaf:
The idea is very much a stark reality. Open your eyes and take a look.

Rather than offer blank statements, please offer some real gist.

Bobbyaf:
That sounds like pure speculation, not scripture. Go back to what Ezekiel the inspired prophet said about the soul that sinneth. In other words, the person that sins, and I supect in a broader context means, the person that lives a life of sin will experience the eternal death. We are already aware of the natural death that comes upon man because of Adam's sin.

Bobbyaf, English is a simple thing - and I do hope you're not struggling with it. here, let me make it simpler for you:

There are two particular references to the word "soul" in Scripture:

(a) referring to the person themselves

(b) referring to only one of the three components of a person

I enunciated the difference between the two, provided numerous scriptures to show HOW they are distinct, before reiterating what Ezekiel meant.  Your problem is to go by a linear reasoning and so presume that the word "soul" has and means ONLY ONE thing - that is where your problem lies!

Good point that you understand Ezekiel to be pointing to the PERSON - and I said so earlier, did I not? Here again:

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=60507.msg1857802#msg1857802 date=1200496846]All the foregoing citations are just examples in scripture where the word "soul" is used in particular reference to the persons themselves rather than to the distinct component as seperate from the other components ("spirit" and "body". It is in the former sense (where "soul" is the person in particular) that the prophet Ezekiel applies the word "soul" in Ezekiel 18:4 & 20.[/quote][/list]

If you took time to digest my rejoinder, you definitely would not have missed that point already and so begin to skewer off the way you did!

But because Ezekiel's use of the word "soul" is NOT what this thread suggests, I also made this point to bring you back to the TOPIC of the thread:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=60507.msg1857802#msg1857802 date=1200496846]However, when you look carefully at the topic of this thread [Spirit, Soul And Body - What's the Difference?], you'll see that [size=14pt]we are rather trying to examine the various components of man[/size]; rather than assuming the context of "soul" merely for the totality of person.[/quote]Bobbyaf, in simple terms, let me explain again:

This thread is about the various COMPONENTS of man - spirit, soul and body!!! That is NOT what Ezekiel deals with, for he was dealing with the word "soul" as used for the person themselves without distinguishing it from the "spirit" or "body"!!!

If you learn to be humble enough to carefully read through the persuasions of others, you won't miss the point.

Please now, can you deal with the DIFFERENCE between the various components of man - SPIRIT, SOUL and BODY - what's the DIFFERENCE between them?!?

Bobbyaf:
Soul in this context means life.

I hear you. Please attend to the topic, thank you.

@quikengr,

quikengr:
Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.

Lol. . . I guess that both the OT and NT prophets did not know that the Messiah was DEITY before the centuries you magically assumed?

Please go back and read your Bible.

@olabowale,

Perhaps, if you take time to gather your thoughts coherently, one would not feel so sorry for the Qur'an or Islam as your posts help us to feel that way.

olabowale:
Since you do not believe as the Jews, who use the Torah, why then do you have the Torah in your Holy Book along with the Bible?

Indeed, the Jews may not believe in Christian doctrines - and the reasons are clearly enunciated in both the OT and NT. However, their unbelief does not nullify the veracity of the Biblical scriptures (Rom. 3:3 -- "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?".

The reason why Christians believe in both the OT and NT is that they form a coherent hold in the redemptive history and purposes of God. The prophecies of God's saving grace and redemption to mankind are found in the OT; the fulfillment of those prophecies are explicated in the NT. Without the OT, we would not be able to understand what prophecies were being referred to; and without the NT, man would not be able to see the fulfillment of those prophecies.

Now, in the case of the Qur'an, what we find are tales that make no coherent reading at all. Apart from mere mention of the names of Biblical characters (such as Abraham, Moses and David), Muhammad had no clue what the Biblical revelations of both the Torah and the prophets were pointing to. For instance, what would you say about the prophecy of the seed of the woman in Genesis 3 v 15? Because Muslims also have no clue, they either DENY it; or tacitly avoid any discussions thereto. - And there are numerous other prophecies in the OT that no Muslim is able to coherently address!

olabowale:
Why, knowing fully well that the Jews who use the Torah do not believe your lord/god Jesus is even a Prophet and therefore they are still waiting for the Messiah, do you stubbornly cling to their Torah, when they do not even rekorn with your Bible, the NT?

It is sad that many Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to be revealed - and the prophecy that God will open their eyes to see the Messiah will surely come to pass. Nonetheless, whatever they assume the Messiah to be, it is clear that the same OT prophecies they have in their hands clearly declare that the Messiah who is to come is actually the Mighty God (see Isaiah 9 v 6).

Muslims have taken the position of ridiculing the Biblical prophecies of the deity of the Messiah; but that is a worse situation than the Jewish position. The Jews do not deny that such texts as Isaiah 9 v 6 are authentic. Yet, the Muslim typically goes one step further, not only to deny, but also to castigate such prophecies!

Now, as to the issue of stubbornly clinging to the Torah, Muslims should ask themselves why they have tried to cling on to the false notion that Muhammad was prophesied in ANY Jewish scripture!! We know that Muslim scholars have tried to force-read Muhammad into the OT - from Genesis to Malachi, especially Deuteronomy!! But when the claims of these Muslim scholars were laid bare, what did we see? We saw how the same Muslims who quoted the same OT scriptures for Muhammad are the very same ones who came back embarrassingly expressing their distrust of those same Scriptures!

Do you guys have any consistent position at all before seeking to allege anything against anyone?

The point is that Islam bears no semblance to the revelations of the Biblical prophets. Nothing at all in either the OT or NT helps to authnticate the religion of Islam. I know how embarrassing this sounds to Muslims - because if it is true that Muhammad is NOT in the Bible (as surely as he is NOT), then it only proves that the Qur'an is FALSE! It then means that the so-called "prophecies" of the Qur'an for Muhammad in the Deuteronomy are a sham - nothing more or less than that!

The Muslim today would have to go seek out what "Bible" the 'Allah' of Islam was referring to in the Qur'an. Since Muslims are saying it could not be the Deuteronomy of the Bible we have today, the obviously, the attempt to force Muhammad into the bible in the first place is a huge shame.

Hi again @Blackcat,

Blackcat:
You did not talk on this oh.

2. Curse Punishmnet of man ruling over a woman and pain in child birth.

Lol. . . I touched upon that right after I had taken the time to explain in detail that man today was not designed to operate or live his life on the basis on the divine pronouncements upon Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. This is why, after giving the detailed rejoinder, I went on to say this:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=93545.msg1857783#msg1857783 date=1200496642]And what about EVE?

As you can see, she was never under a curse - and I could take the time again to walk you through Scripture to show you that God is not asking us to live our lives under His pronouncements in Genesis 3 where He meted out punishments to Adam and Eve.

If there were any curses upon either Adam or Eve, the Bible would clearly and distinctly have stated it so. But there is none specifically pronounced upon either of them; and there is no reason to try and read what is not there into the texts.[/quote]You can see that asking someone to explain a "curse" that is non-existent in Genesis 3 upon Adam and Eve is a task that simply amounts to wasting our time. WHY? Because it simply is not there!

@Bobby,

Bobbyaf:
See where I am going with this? So in essence the word soul means life, being, person, creature, etc.

I already mentioned the word "creature" as used in Genesis 2 v 7 earlier.

Bobbyaf:
The prophet says "the soul that sins shall die", and the death of which he speaks is both the natural death, as well as the eternal death.

Aren't you confusing issues here already? At first, you suggested that the soul in "that verse" (i.e., Gen. 2 v 7) means the "life, being, person, creature"; but then you draw the inference that this "soul" dies a natural death? Whatever happened to the spiritual component of man known as the "soul" - which is the core subject of our present discussion? It would be very helpful that you try to always keep the distinction in clear perspectives as you discuss them - for the word "soul" in Scripture has various connotations.

On the other hand, (obviously if you unfortunately disregard the broad context of Ezek. 18:4 & 20), then you arrive at the idea that the "soul" (as a distinct component of man) actually dies - that is, does not survive the death of the body! On the contrary, we find something interesting in Jesus' teaching in Matthew 10:28 --

'And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.'

This simply means that the death of the body is different from the experience of the soul. One may be able to "kill the body" and may not be able to "kill the soul" - have you ever sat down to ponder about that? And the verses examined earlier [1 Kings 17:21-22; Luke 16; Revelation 6:9-10] point out the fact that the "soul" survives the death of the body!

So, what does the prophet Ezekiel mean by the "soul" in Ezek. 18:4 & 20? He simply means the person himself and not specifically to the component in man distinctinctly called the soul as separate from the other components - "spirit" and "body" (1 Thes. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12). The prophet Ezekiel was not dealing with merely the "soul" as a component; that is why we read of persons specifically described ("the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father", etc - Ezek. 18:20).

However, that Ezekiel was rather applying the term "soul" to mean the person in particular is obvious in the fact that the other Biblical prophets have so applied the term in many OT and NT verses:


[center]The Old Testament:[/center]

[list][li]Gen. 46:18 -- These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Gen. 46:25 -- These are the sons of Bilhah, which Laban gave unto Rachel his daughter, and she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were seven.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Lev. 7:27 -- Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Lev. 17:15 -- And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Lev. 18:29 -- For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Num. 15:27 -- And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Lamentations 3:25 -- The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him.[/li][/list]


[center]The New Testament:[/center]

[list][li]Acts 2:41 -- Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Acts 2:43 -- And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Acts 3:23 -- And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. [/li][/list]

[list][li]Acts 27:37 -- And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Rom. 13:1 -- Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.[/li][/list]

[list][li]1 Pet. 3:20 -- Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.[/li][/list]

All the foregoing citations are just examples in scripture where the word "soul" is used in particular reference to the persons themselves rather than to the distinct component as seperate from the other components ("spirit" and "body". It is in the former sense (where "soul" is the person in particular) that the prophet Ezekiel applies the word "soul" in Ezekiel 18:4 & 20.

However, when you look carefully at the topic of this thread [Spirit, Soul And Body - What's the Difference?], you'll see that we are rather trying to examine the various components of man; rather than assuming the context of "soul" merely for the totality of person.

@Bobby,

Bobbyaf:
Simplify that for a 6 year old. What does soul mean in that verse? Give me one word.

"Creature" - that is the word in Hebrew in that verse and applies to both man and animals. I have earlier stated that "The exegesis of the soul in Scripture points to the component that identifies man in his distinct personality" - and that was just to help us seek a proper contextual meaning of the word "soul" as used in Scripture for man.

Bobbyaf:
As was confirmed by Geneis 2:7

You see, Adam was not a dead soul before recieving the "breath of life". He was simply lifeless, not dead. The transition only took place after God blew the breath of life into his nostrils.

Bobbyaf, what exactly do you mean by the "breath of life"?

Bobbyaf:
Noticed the bible said that man became a living soul, and not that man possessed a soul? To become something and to have something are two different things.

Could you kindly enunciate from Scripture the difference between "possessing" and "becoming" something in regards especially to the soul?

Bobbyaf:
Satan has decieved the masses into thinking that man's soul is eternal, so that when he dies his soul lives on. Because of this man does not see the need to accept God's plan of salvation through Jesus' sacrificial death. Whats the point he asks, when my soul can't die? My soul will take another form somehow and continue living.

Instead of pushing your own agenda, why don't you try and exercise the humility of sharing your persuasions without assuming that counter views to yours are the result of Satan having deceived anybody? What if it turns out that your pride is actually contrary to what Scripture teaches?

That the soul survives the death of the [physical] body does not mean that people therefore see no need to accept God's gift of salvation in Christ. That idea as expressed in your post is a farce and a mechanical device to assume things that are far-fetched. Scripture reveals that the soul survives the death of the body; however, it is a question of what state of existence the soul is found in after it leaves the body. It is rather another type of existence that the soul experiences.

That this is the case is what the Bible teaches in such verses as 1 Kings 17:21-22 --

'And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD,
and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him
again, and he revived.'

What actually happened in this narrative is simple to follow. The child was dead and his body was there before Elijah; but his soul was not in the body. The prphet prayed: "let this child's soul come into him again." This simply demonstrates that te soul was still existing, albeit OUTSIDE his body. When God answered Elijah's prayer, then "the soul of the child came into him again".

Question: where was this child's soul before it returned to ("came into. . . again" his body?

Again, Luke 16 highlights the fact that the soul survives the death of the body. Both the rich man and Lazarus died (v. 22) and we see their existence beyond their bodies in the grave (v. 23-31). Many people argue that since this was a "parable", it could not be teaching the realities of existence beyond the grave - and so they just disregard its value. My simple answer to such attitude is that they should also be ready to disregard the value of any and all the parables in the Bible - if parables are merely meant to be disregarded at all!

Another example, we find that Revelation 6:9-10 specifically demonstrates that the saints who were slain actually were seen as "souls" without their bodies. Beyond that, these souls without bodies were heard as "they cried with a loud voice". Please note that this was not a parable; and we cannot deny its fact as a reality beyond our known physical world.

These scriptures cited [1 Kings 17:21-22; Luke 16; Revelation 6:9-10] are examples that point out the fact that the soul survives the death of the body; and unless you have an alternative exegesis for those texts, please have the humility of refraining from assumptions of thinking others have been deceived by Satan.