It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


One myth leads to another

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 05:11 AM

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic
You posted among many other examples -

Gen. 2:7: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Notice that this does not say that man was given a soul but that he became a soul, a living person.) (The part of the Hebrew word here rendered “soul” is neʹphesh. KJ, AS, and Dy agree with that rendering. RS, JB, NAB read “being.” NE says “creature.” Kx reads “person.”)

According to your opinion and others that you listed, with no authority, the soul is the lifeless clod laying upon the earth called Adam.

Another straw man or twist of what is being quoted. Conveniently ignoring or stubbornly dismissing, trivializing or suggesting it's incorrect cause you have this superior "Judaic understanding of Torah" (I'd like to give you a more detailed warning or heads-up about your conditioned arrogance and intellectual superiority complex but I'm so worried you'll see it as an insult and try to project it onto me, or others will for me just mentioning it and hoping it will wake people up to what has been done to them. But I guess that's just crazy conspiracy talk, who would want to investigate that regarding their own views of reality especially after they've been told again and again that they're already awake to all these types of conspiracies and/or deceptions in religion or of reality):

Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.
Gen. 9:5: “Besides that, your blood of your souls [or, “lives”; Hebrew, from neʹphesh] shall I ask back.” (Here the soul is said to have blood.
"...The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . .It can mean life itself,..."
“The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.
“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

quoting you again:

The soul is the spiritual immaterial part of man held to survive death. Source = is the "Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica" --

Here's a more accurate source admitting to the historical origin of that idea/philosophy and belief, what is being described is not exclusively done by the ones mentioned below (as the rest of my quotations allude to), if you catch my drift. Remember that I already thoroughly showed how the bible uses the word neʹphesh, english: soul. Before you object "no authority" because of it not tickling your ears:

As for the Greek word psy·kheʹ, Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as “life,” ... “a living being,” ... Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of “departed spirit,” “the immaterial and immortal soul,” “the spirit of the universe,” and “the immaterial principle of movement and life.” ...—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·kheʹ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

And since you basically said the same thing, you also probably don't want to think about why it might be dangerous to your mental health and a sign you have already been infected by what some refer to as Platonic philosophy or Neoplatonism(Pagan mythology), or possibly don't even see a threat to your way of thinking and the following you have also fallen victim to:

What is the origin of Christendom’s belief in an immaterial, immortal soul?

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”—Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”—Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

Paradox/contradiction alert! "Death" Translates to the philosophy/idea: death = life.

Going a little further into history for the same lie, myth/false story:

Genesis 3:4 (NW):

At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die."

Quoting you again:

The soul is Nephesh or Ruah...

What would it take for you to stop denying, ignoring, trivializing, or twisting the difference in the historical usage (as recorded in historical documentation and explained by numerous scholars with a large variety of backgrounds who studied this subject) of the Hebrew words ruʹach (English: spirit) and neʹphesh (English: soul)?
edit on 1-4-2016 by whereislogic because: change

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 06:37 AM

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic
As I said before, you try to read Hebrew with Greek understanding and post that understanding in your English and that is not the real world.

I am trying to show how Greek philosophy and interpretation of language was melded into Judaism (and other religions or philosophies about reality). It seems kinda difficult to me to turn that into what you just described which almost sounds like what I'm trying to expose others have done in the past. The same ones you've taken your information from and I've tried to demonstrate how that works by your own statements about this subject; your adoption of Greek Pagan philosophy, possibly without realizing it cause it was dressed up in a 'jacket' of "Judaic understanding of Torah", using your words (Plato's philosophies to be exact) into your attempts to "read Hebrew", using your words. I'd say "understand Hebrew", if it wasn't for you probably having it done for you and then accepting what you were told based on the fact that it tickled your ears, there doesn't seem to be very much "understanding" going on here but repetition of what's been taught. Not meant as an insult so please don't take it that way. The 'jacket' above to hide the fact that what you were taught about the "soul" is of Greek Pagan philosophical origin (and mythology) also comes in the form of what some call "Jewish Christianity", but my sentence was getting too long (and if you go further back in history you can trace it back to Babylon and ultimately Satan, but it's been modified to hide that origin). There's also a 'scientific or science jacket' and an 'enlightened or enlightenment jacket'.

Or a more shorter version quoting from the OP, I am demonstrating and expanding on the behaviour of those (including you) who are:

using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

The above describes what I've been doing, but perhaps you have difficulty in understanding and seeing that (preferring to see the other thing you described while refusing to see how your teachers or those who you've taken your information from or whose information you rely upon or trust, have done something very similar. I'd say the same thing if you had phrased it differently, minor side issue). I propose that difficulty is caused by some of the following described in 1 Corinthians chapter 2:

2 So when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with extravagant speech or wisdom declaring the sacred secret of God to you. 2 For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him executed on the stake. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling; 4 and my speech and what I preached were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of spirit and power, 5 so that your faith might be, not in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power. 6 Now we speak wisdom among those who are mature, but not the wisdom of this system of things nor that of the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom in a sacred secret, the hidden wisdom, which God foreordained before the systems of things for our glory. 8 It is this wisdom that none of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known it, they would not have executed the glorious Lord. 9 But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God except the spirit of God. 12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain* spiritual matters with spiritual words. 14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

[Personal sidethought that may be worth sharing: perhaps it's unreasonable to expect someone to examine something spiritually when they can't or don't want to learn how to tell the difference between the word "soul" and "spirit" in the first place, but is it also unreasonable to be honest with such a person and encourage them to at least try to learn the difference from a source other than the ones who have taught them so much misinformation and hidden or obscured the truth of the matter from them? Or is that automatically offensive and bigotry or arrogant? If it wasn't for the bible I'd have no clue why so many people on the internet get upset and ready to resist any such type of encouragement, even on sites where people profess to want to learn something about the lies they've been told by mainstream thinking, I guess it still has to tickle their ears...]

[another sidethought and appeal to some sensible commentary from others perhaps about it: Is it difficult to click a link to an article someone is referring to, seeing on the right side the table of contents with 6 myths listed and 2 big buttons with "previous" and "next" and to actually read the article that fits entirely on my screen and see the "next" and "previous" buttons at the bottem of the article ater you've actually read it, click the next button and see the other 5 myths one page at a time? Or is the link just not working in my OP? I do not understand Seede's commentary about it accept the demonstration of dismissiveness in possibly not clicking, not reading and not paying attention at all. To end up complaining about the results of his own dismissive attitude. I'm sorry Seede if describing your commentary about that sounds a bit disrespectful as if you're not even in the room, but it all seems so suspicious to me, as if I'm being setup to talk about that or respond in a certain manner to it, perhaps discrediting myself with my behaviour and words about it. I don't particularly like to use the term trolling cause it's abit too vague for me, but so are some parts of your comments to me Seede even though you say you are being "clear"]
edit on 1-4-2016 by whereislogic because: change

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: Seede

From your source, this time analyzed with some honesty and hopefully demonstrating how you've been tricked (if not now, perhaps later when you can give it another less biased thought, and otherwise it might help others see what's going on here):

The spiritual, immaterial part of man, held to survive death.

source: Soul : The Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica : Blackwell Reference Online

This is being presented by you and that dictionary as a factual definition for the English word "soul", however the Jewish Encyclopedia (1910) admits that this is:

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

Do I need to spell out why the philosophy that "the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body" is the same concept, philosophy/idea as: the soul = "The spiritual, immaterial part of man, held to survive death."? It's just phrased differently and emphasizing different aspects of the same way of thinking about the soul.

Let's continue with the Blackwell dictionary:

There are three biblical words translated as “soul”: “nephesh,” “ruaḥ,” and “neshamah”...

This is a very cunning way of conditioning people with the idea that it's ok to do that (regardless of whether or not bible translators are doing that). And to keep people in darkness and in ignorance that there's a big difference between the Hebrew words used in the bible, ruʹach (English: spirit, which refers to that which is immaterial) and neʹphesh (English: soul, which, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refers to that which is material). And the reason to bring up Greek philosophy (teaching) in all this is to show the motive for this deception, to hide that Greek Pagan philosophy was adopted into many religions and by those capitalizing on the ambiguity of language by then using Hebrew scriptures that use ruʹach to support Plato's Greek Pagan philosophy/idea that the soul is immaterial, including the religion the writers of that dictionary adhere to (and even using "spirit" and "soul" as synonyms or interchangeably, as you did when you were expressing your beliefs that match Plato's beliefs that I bolded twice now).

Repeating something from before:

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

Let's continue with the Blackwell dictionary:

During the Hellenistic period the concept of the soul's existing independently of the body became current; it was understood as originating in Heaven and was believed to join the body at the moment of birth.

Note that the Blackwell dictionary writers refuse to admit that this is a Hellenistic concept (as in Pagan Greek philosophy). For reasons I've already explained numerous times, bias and deception, misunderstanding, self-delusion, numerous words and appropiate bible verses apply for this pattern of behaviour.

Oh, just realized there's only 1 author for the Blackwell dictionary, Samuel Kohn, a Hungarian Rabbi (English: Teacher, you know, like the ones mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:3, you quoting that dictionary demonstrated the part that says "according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled." You like this definition, so Samuel Kohn becomes one of those teachers that you and others surround themselves with, figuratively in this case, it also happens literally, perhaps the term cherry-picking rings a bell, while ignoring what I quoted which already showed that definition to be false and speculative by the same Judaic source that Samuel Kohn claims to be a part of and before you brought it up and appealed to it); anyway, I already showed that other so-called 'teachers' are doing the same thing in my quotations. Your trust in these rabbis/teachers is too blind and not skeptical enough, especially for someone who likes to think they left Judaism behind and are calling themselves Christian.

One last clarification that I should probably have edited in there where it's discussed, quoted and bolded:

"that which breathes" (the material) is not the "breath" itself (the immaterial).

Spirit Definition: The Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek pneuʹma, which are often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) ... (4) ...(5) spirit persons, and (6) ...
The original-language terms (Heb., neʹphesh [נֶפֶשׁ]; Gr., psy·kheʹ [ψυχή]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.

It is that almost overlapping meaning or definition that I bolded that allows cunning philosophers to capitalize on the ambiguity of language. Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (The Hebrew word here translated “spirit” is a derivative of ruʹach. Some translators render it “breath.” When that ruʹach, or active life-force, leaves the body, the person’s thoughts perish; they do not continue in another realm.)
edit on 1-4-2016 by whereislogic because: change

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:06 PM
I was out of space but this description is even better from the earlier source shared about the word "spirit" (there's more on that page if you search for "breath", this is from the Insight book):


The Greek pneuʹma (spirit) comes from pneʹo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ruʹach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ruʹach and pneuʹma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

Another Hebrew word, nesha·mahʹ (Ge 2:7), also means “breath,” but it is more limited in range of meaning than ruʹach. The Greek pno·eʹ seems to have a similar limited sense (Ac 17:25) and was used by the Septuagint translators to render nesha·mahʹ.

Acts 17:25 (NW):

nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.

Notice that the following list of bible translations all have "breath" there (giving a clue regarding the awareness of all the bible translators of those translations of the mentioned "limited in range of meaning" above, that doesn't prevent someone from still trying to deceive people that it's interchangeable with the English word "soul" though, you might know of one, but it's useful to realize if someone does the page search I suggested at the start of this comment):

New International Version
New Living Translation
English Standard Version
Berean Study Bible
Berean Literal Bible
New American Standard Bible
King James Bible
Holman Christian Standard Bible
International Standard Version
NET Bible
GOD'S WORD® Translation
New American Standard 1977
Jubilee Bible 2000
King James 2000 Bible
American King James Version
American Standard Version
Douay-Rheims Bible
Darby Bible Translation
English Revised Version
Webster's Bible Translation
Weymouth New Testament
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation
edit on 1-4-2016 by whereislogic because: error

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:28 AM
So summing it all up and giving the definitions for each of the 3 words mentioned by the Blackwell dictionary that Seede brought up (for easy reference for anyone who's going to read this thread or anyone who has taken their information from similar sources)...

Hebrew: nesha·mahʹ
English: breath

More limited in range of meaning than ruʹach.

Hebrew: ruʹach
English: spirit

Basically means “breath” but has extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) It can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion.

Hebrew: neʹphesh
English: soul

Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. Neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refers to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

So hopefully I have highlighted the difference sufficiently now.

edit on 3-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:54 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

Wow, whereislogic! Did you count time for all that writing? I would say at least two or three hours on your monthly time card would be fair. One small admonition if you have "ears to hear"....Jesus said to beware of the Scribes and Pharisees (writers/publishers and lawyers).

Matt. 23: 13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

edit on 3-4-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: queenofswords

With 68 posts right now I apparently still have a long way to catch up with you and many others here before I have to start worrying...

Oh, and I don't think you understand that scripture very well when you refer to religious scholars, teachers and leaders (or influential religious figures, not someone that is marginalized because they're saying things people don't want to hear but the ones that are 'tickling people's ears', telling them what they want to hear) as just "writers/publishers and lawyers".

The scribes and Pharisees pretended to be loyal teachers of God’s Law, but in reality they filled people’s minds with human teachings that drew attention away from God. Which is exactly what this thread is about. Those "human teachings" being the myths of which there are 6 examples in the article linked in the OP.
edit on 3-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 03:50 PM
a reply to: whereislogic

I used to be caught up in religious doctrine till I observed all the false teachings that changed with every unfulfilled prediction and the "Scribes (Writers/Publishers) and Pharisees (WTS Lawyers) calling it "new light".

I watched how teachings of religion enslave a person, destroy and separate families, and forbid real spiritual search. When I realized that truth, I was set free. Religion is a bondage. Jesus didn't write a single thing down himself. He said to beware of scribes. Why? Because they interpret using their own doctrines of man.

The Kingdom of God is within you (not in your midst as some religions interpret can even look at the original says "within" you.)

I got tired of the changing light, the blinking light, the dim light, the brighter and brighter light, until one day it hit me. You don't need someone telling you what to believe. Beliefs are just that....beliefs. The Truth is written in your heart. Everyone that came after Jesus is suspect, especially Paul, imo, the big narcissist. Every other sentence is "I this and I that".

I didn't believe in an immortal soul back then either. Now, I do. Man is a living soul. I was taught that soul is just another word for the body until I thought about what it means to BE a living soul. The soul is what lives. The physical incarnation embodies your soul. When the body dies, the soul returns to the father who gave it...the Divine One.

These "writers of the law"....these publishers of magazines and books....these Scribes and Pharisees try to shut out the kingdom of God from others. Christ is the mediator, not S&P and publishers of books, and each and every one of us can experience the Divine without a religious body of men telling us how. We already know how. It's written in our DNA, on our hearts. We can choose to have a relationship with the Divine, or choose not to.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:01 AM

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: UFOdanger
Not true at all. Nazarene's or also known as Ebionite's are and were any sect of Jew or embraced Gentile who is or was a Christian or known follower of Jesus. The Roman Catholic organization had nothing to do in formation or practicing liturgy of the Nazarene Jerusalem synagogue. Greek, Latin, nor any other languages were allowed to influence this first Nazarene Synagogue except for Hebrew and or Aramaic. In fact the Roman Catholic organization did not come into prominence till after they slaughtered the remaining true Christians in 135 CE. and presented it as their own form of a religion.

James the Just was elected by Jesus to be the Nasi of this new sect and he had complete charge of this first so called church for well over three decades when he was then murdered. John was second in command and Peter was third in command of this new sect.

Along with the evidence I am providing from an external source, Peter went throughout all the Gentile cities after Paul to correct his false teachings, to warn them of Paul's doctrine, and to baptize them, why would all this make you think John was superior to Peter in command? Besides writing the original Aramaic gospel that everybody stole from, what did John do that makes you think he was higher in command?

It was all about James and Peter, John was one of the three pillars, and he was awesome, and his gospel that everyone stole from was awesome, but James and Peter were in the spotlight, there is no evidence supporting your idea that Peter was third in command and John was second.

Martha, being the eldest, was responsible for the administration of the property. This was recorded in the Book of Rabinus (34th and 35th chapters); where upon the sale they gave the whole proceeds to Peter, for the use of the Jerusalem Nazarene Church.

In this video, is shows how John Allegro discovered that Peter was mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls at around 11:30, if only you were aware that the release of the scrolls is a complete conspiracy and we need to trust what John says, even though he went fringe, it is important to realize that absolutely none of the authorities involved with the release of the scrolls can be trusted at all, so any important details that John brings up need to be payed attention to.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 01:57 AM

originally posted by: queenofswords
Because they interpret using their own doctrines of man.

Or you can phrase that as "they filled people’s minds with human teachings that drew attention away from God" while "tickling people's ears, telling them what they want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:3,4) using human philosophy and human ways of thinking (Colossians 2:8)

using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

The above is from the OP.

Among many other descriptions in the bible you can study to get a more accurate picture of what's going on regarding these deceptions, misunderstandings and myths/false stories. Or you can express some of your own examples like you did when you said:

I didn't believe in an immortal soul back then either. Now, I do.

Which is thoroughly discussed in this thread how that philosophy was popularized by Plato. And popular in Egyptian and Babylonian religious philosophy (while you claim to be so self-dependent as if you've left religion behind; you do realize that that myth/false story about the soul is propagated by pretty much every major organized religion in the world? As per the bible verses already mentioned).

Quoting you again:

The Truth is written in your heart.

A philosophy I wrote something about in the thread in the religion, faith and theology forum which makes a reference to Pontius Pilatus' cynical question "What is truth?". I'll see if I can edit that in later, no time now.

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:01 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

Calling something a myth because it was "popularized" by some other culture or a person prior to Christianity doesn't mean there isn't truth to it. Perhaps those men and those cultures KNEW something that most everybody instinctively knows in their heart. No---not a myth.

I actually have come to distrust most everything in the Greek scriptures (New Testament) except for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and perhaps the book of Revelation.

I don't think a person even needs the Bible to tell you the Truth. I can say that now without guilt. I was raised on it, but came to know that if every Bible in the world was gone all of a sudden, you would be just fine spiritually because God's laws are written in your heart, they're in your DNA so to speak.

You have free will to choose a personal relationship with the Divine or not. When you cultivate that relationship, you find treasures galore and realize you didn't need a group of self-professed "leaders", nor a bunch of magazines and books spouting doctrine and predictions, twisting words like pretzels to fit into some belief system that has changed and changed and changed again!

I don't mean to knock religion. I simply say that religion is like the travel guide that you read and study. The true spiritual journey comes when you leave the travel guide behind and embark on the trip itself.

To each his own. Some people need a community of religious friends for various reasons and I see nothing wrong with that until that community decides to tear families apart because someone decides they no longer believe the way they were taught by a particular religion.

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:20 PM
a reply to: IsidoreOfSeville

I have never in my life heard of that version of history, I have to say. Do you have sources for that? From an "off the top of my head" analysis, I'd like to bring a up a few points if I may. First and foremost, there's Matthew 16:18. And rather than post a wall of text (I know I myself have a hard time reading them), I like to give links. So, here's one that asks Where Does the Bible Say Anything about the Papacy?. Here's another one about Peter and the Papacy. Of note, one good quote from that last one:

Firstly, it would take too much time and research in showing you all my sources. I have been taught by Christian rabbi and most of what I posted was from my teachings. Nevertheless here is a web page that I think will answer all of your questions that you have asked of me. It is quite lengthy and variable but the answers should be there.

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Firstly, I will not argue this Matthew account with anyone. I give you my opinion and that is that of which I understand ---

Jesus has told Peter that this revelation is by the Holy Spirit and that was that He (Jesus) was the Christ and also the Son of God. Then Jesus tells Peter that upon this premise of His being the Christ and Son of God that His church foundation will be built. Not that the church is built upon the sinful man Peter but the foundation of the Christ and Son of God.

Now you also must realize just why did Jesus bring this matter up? It has to do with the Jews being in captivity and paying tribute to Rome. Remember that all of these people in this NT era were born and raised as conquered Jews and being conquered Jews were only allowed the Temple worship by the grace of Rome. The high priest of these conquered Jews was appointed by the prefect of Judah, who in this case was Pontius Pilate. That was one of the perks of being a prefect from Rome.

The high priest was chosen by who would offer the highest kick back. Some thing on the order of our politics of today. The house of Annus controlled this office for many years and in this day it was Annus the ex high priest who got his son in law Ciaphus in as high priest. So what has this to do with the Matthew account? Jesus is telling Peter that His (Jesus') church will not be run on this type of foundation of graft but will be founded upon the church being of God. Not of men but of God. It will once again return to theocracy as in the days of Shem.

The rest of this prophecy entails a very careful approach. It is so dangerous that some of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church has in the past been condemned. My advice to anyone who will focus on this matter is to first read "Papal Magic" by Simon. Some clergy became so obsessed with this account of binding and loosing that it evolved into witchcraft, black mass with infant sacrifice and all sorts of conjuring demons into obedience. Along with this was the power to forgive each other their sins. Be very careful when digging into this Matthew account.

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:36 PM
a reply to: UFOdanger

Along with the evidence I am providing from an external source, Peter went throughout all the Gentile cities after Paul to correct his false teachings, to warn them of Paul's doctrine, and to baptize them, why would all this make you think John was superior to Peter in command? Besides writing the original Aramaic gospel that everybody stole from, what did John do that makes you think he was higher in command?

Do not wish to argue and if that is what you want to believe then to you that is correct.

Organization of the Jerusalem Nazarene Ecclesia

It soon became apparent, at least by 34-35 CE, that the central church needed an organization to deal with the conflicts such as the Greek adherents to the faith and how to provide for the Greek widows, as well as how to deal with the gentiles who wished to be admitted into the church. The models used for the organization of the Nazarene Ecclesia were apparent, the Essene structure, Jesus ministerial organization (Luke 10:1), the Mosaic model (Numbers 11:16-17) and the Sanhedrin.

Drawing of the Jewish Sanhedrin (c. 1700 CE)

There were elected 70 representatives called Elders, with an initial cabinet of fifteen, which included a Council of twelve with three Leaders. The Sanhedrin and the Essenes had a similar structure in which:

1. the High Priest was called the Nasi,
2. his Deputy High Priest was called the Sagan, and the
3. Chief Office of the Religious Court was called the Ab Beth-Din.

Yet this was also adapted closer to the model of Jesus’ ministry, in which the three leaders, Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and his brother, John were part of the Twelve. In the Nazarene Congregation, the “pillars” as Paul called them, were Peter, James (Jacob) the brother of Jesus, and John.

1. Apostle James (Jacob) the Just became the High Priest (Nasi), who is presented in Acts of the Apostles as a “wise interpreter of scriptures who presides over the Council and gives his rulings” (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)
2. The Apostle John became the Deputy (Sagan) as from his priestly background he could deal with doctrine and congregational organization issues and
3. The Apostle Peter became the Chief Officer of the Religious Court (Ab Beth-Din), or the general supervisor, the chief propagandist or evangelist (fame at Pentecost) and pastoral director.
Source -

Do you know what deputy means? Well John was deputy (2nd in command) according to the above sources.
Actually it is not a matter of what I say but of what I have been taught, In this case yo can read Schonfield, Hugh Joseph and draw your own conclusions. I do have rabbinic sources but they are not available to you. I am not trying to be contentious but simply informative.

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:34 AM
a reply to: Seede

I like that site for your source, however when I go to the homepage I can never find their in depth interesting literature as when I stumble across them from a google search. It is almost like the informative information in that site is hidden.

However not all of that site has good information, they describe James as a Zealot which encourages individuals like you to think that the Essenes had any tiny bit of abrasive acts or thoughts within their philosophy, yet even when Paul came in to murder James, not one of the Essenes, even though they were superior and could have engaged in fighting, did anything to combat the force which was trying to kill James, in that they wished to be murdered rather than to fight or harm any individual, in this case even in self protection, and that is the epitome of Essene thought, but ever since the beginning they would have you think the Essenes were more warrior like or something.

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:21 PM

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: whereislogic
The Truth is written in your heart.

As promised, a response to that philosophy/idea as well as why people promoting and expressing that philosophy reminds me of Ecclesiastes 1:9 (and the other verses I mentioned and quoted so far):

What is Truth?
edit on 13-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:40 PM

originally posted by: whereislogic

Justin Martyr, one of the most famous of these Christians, believed that God’s Spokesman had manifested himself to Greek philosophers long before the arrival of Jesus. According to Justin and like-minded teachers, the contribution of philosophy and mythology to Christianity made this form of religion truly universal.

I appreciate a lot of what you have to say and I believe you understand what's going on very well. With that being said I don't necessarily think quoting Greek philosophers, when what they are saying is in exact support of God's Word (Bible), is necessarily bad.

1 Corinthians 9:22
"To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

Some people unfortunately have developed Christophobia due to secularist propaganda, hyopcrites, etc, and showing them the discourse of the Greek Philosophers gives them a perspective to allow a slow (which is better than no) integration into Christian Philosophy (Truth).

I look forward to your further opinion.
edit on 13-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 01:58 PM
a reply to: cooperton
I wasn't quite sure what you wanted to talk about, so I didn't respond at first. This thread focuses more on when Greek philosophers (or other philosophers) are teaching something contrary to what the bible is teaching and especially when and how

some Christians began using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

But as you may have noticed, there's a lot of talk about the myth of the immortal soul in the latter stages of this thread, which is a myth that is shared by many organized religions as well as people with personal religious and spiritual beliefs and philosophies/ideas about reality. Also because "one myth leads to another".
edit on 24-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 02:08 AM
a reply to: UFOdanger
The Essenes also promoted the myth of the immortal immaterial soul which is connected to another myth (myth 2 or 3 from the article linked in the OP).
What Did Jesus Teach About Hell?


The ancient Egyptians believed in a fiery hell. The Book Ȧm-Ṭuat, dated 1375 B.C.E., speaks of those who “shall be cast down headlong into the pits of fire; and . . . shall not escape therefrom, and . . . shall not be able to flee from the flames.” Greek philosopher Plutarch (c.46-120 C.E.) wrote of those in the world below: “[They] raised a cry of wailing as they underwent fearful torments and ignominious and excruciating chastisements.”

SECTS OF JUDAISM ARE INFECTED: The historian Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) reported that the Essenes, a Jewish sect, believed that “the souls are immortal, and continue forever.” He added: “This is like the opinion of the Greeks . . . They allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments.”

INTRODUCED INTO “CHRISTIANITY”: In the second century C.E., the apocryphal book Apocalypse of Peter said of the wicked: “There is spread out for them unquenchable fire.” It also stated: “Ezrael, the angel of wrath, brings men and women with the half of their bodies burning and casts them into a place of darkness, the hell of men; and a spirit of wrath chastises them.” During the same time period, writer Theophilus of Antioch quotes the Greek prophetess Sibyl as foretelling the punishments of the wicked: “Upon you burning fire shall come, and ever ye shall daily burn in flames.” These are among the words that Theophilus says are “true, and useful, and just, and profitable to all men.”

HELLFIRE USED TO JUSTIFY VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE AGES: Mary I, queen of England (1553-1558), known as “Bloody Mary” for burning nearly 300 Protestants at the stake, reportedly said: “As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell, there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the Divine vengeance by burning them on earth.”

A RECENT DEFINITION: In recent years, some denominations have revised their teaching about hell. For example, the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England said in 1995: “Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being.”

posted on May, 28 2016 @ 01:45 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

Well at least I am smart enough to know that we cannot argue with each other about us having an immortal soul.

From my in depth investigation, I really don't care what link you share because 99% of everything on the internet has been discovered to be a fraud by me at one point in time.

And that is why my soul still holds on to the Essenes. Because every single angle of society felt obligated to blatantly lie about them, the more powerful and in control over the realm of society and historical learning, the more they lied. And from hearing some of the little surviving remnants they really had Nothing to do with all that falsehood.

You can say all you want about crazy myths and exaggerated notions that have no historical basis, the truth is that they were like the sacred sages of the Himalayan mountains a few hundred years ago, these figures were men that would pray in the wilderness for extended periods of time with no food, and acted with righteousness in every action that did in society, i.e. clothed the homeless, took care of the sick, fed the poor, housed the homeless, watched over the elderly, basically all acts of righteousness that absolutely nobody cares about doing in this present day. They weren't some cult that centuries of dishonesty has made you believe, they were the most illumined human beings that have ever walked on the face of this earth, and they knew that this world would completely lie about them and bring them down to where you think they remain. But one of their favorite sayings was "The first will become last and the last will become first." In acting this wisdom, it was their pride and joy to become last. And what that means, is that they did not illuminate themselves, no not at all in the least bit, so it does not matter what anybody thinks and says, and how it is all wrong, and every time you read some idiotic nonsense over the net you go and share it to create more and more lies, not at all, these men will be forever more, regarded as the utmost holy example of God's creation, and they and God are happy that they keep being pushed to the back and remain last, because they know that means they are first with God, which is what they always knew and why all forces of society were against them - The Maccabees (Zealots), the Herodians, the Romans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, as ironic as it is, their own people refusing the Davidic line itself, it is all a work of God and in the end, God has made them first because you and everybody else has always chopped them down and made them last - but that was their greatest joy to be last and for that, God has rewarded them with the greatest Light of Heaven, and all the words of the ancient prophets regarding the holy city are actually prophecies of them and the eternal soul, and how they will be sitting at the gate and throne of heaven, and all of mankind will have to walk by them and see them before going into heaven, so that all of the world will know who are God's chosen ones, and why God chose them. And at that time you and everybody else will finally realize that everything they thought was untrue.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 03:13 PM
Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal

What is the origin of the myth?

“The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul’s immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 11, page 25.

What does the Bible say?

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”—Ezekiel 18:4, King James Version.

Regarding the creation of the first human soul, the Bible says: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul [Hebrew, neʹphesh].”—Genesis 2:7.

The Hebrew word neʹphesh, translated “soul,” means ‘a creature that breathes.’ When God created the first man, Adam, He did not infuse into him an immortal soul but the life force that is maintained by breathing. Therefore, “soul” in the Biblical sense refers to the entire living being. If separated from the life force originally given by God, the soul dies.—Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 18:20.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul raised questions: Where do souls go after death? What happens to the souls of the wicked? When nominal Christians adopted the myth of the immortal soul, this led them to accept another myth—the teaching of hellfire.

Compare these Bible verses: Ecclesiastes 3:19; Matthew 10:28; Acts 3:23


At death a person ceases to exist

Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

What is the origin of the myth?

“Of all classical Greek philosophers, the one who has had the greatest influence on traditional views of Hell is Plato.”—Histoire des enfers (The History of Hell), by Georges Minois, page 50.

“From the middle of the 2nd century AD Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms . . . The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism [the teachings of Plato].”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 25, page 890.

“The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, page 270.

What does the Bible say?

“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, . . . for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”—Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, Revised Standard Version.

The Hebrew word Sheol, which referred to the “abode of the dead,” is translated “hell” in some versions of the Bible. What does this passage reveal about the condition of the dead? Do they suffer in Sheol in order to atone for their errors? No, for they “know nothing.” That is why the patriarch Job, when suffering terribly because of a severe illness, begged God: “Protect me in hell [Hebrew, Sheol].” (Job 14:13; Douay-Rheims Version) What meaning would his request have had if Sheol was a place of eternal torment? Hell, in the Biblical sense, is simply the common grave of mankind, where all activity has ceased.

Is not this definition of hell more logical and in harmony with Scripture? What crime, however horrible, could cause a God of love to torture a person endlessly? (1 John 4:8) But if hellfire is a myth, what about heaven?

Compare these Bible verses: Psalm 146:3, 4; Acts 2:25-27; Romans 6:7, 23


God does not punish people in hell

Remember that the last question is always leading up to the next myth discussed in the article you can find if you click the link (there are next and previous buttons on the page, as well as links to the bible verses mentioned for comparison).
edit on 8-7-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in