Is the Holy Spirit in the West, Chi/Kundalini

After watching enough Saturday Morning Cartoons or Animes, and a bunch of Carthuses from a few bible readings an other Eastern schools of thought. I’ve been leaning that the idea of the Holy Spirit is very much the same as the Easts concepts of Chi. Now where to start, so usually the Holy Spirit is basically deemed as something as Gods or Heavens will or response of acting on Earth, or at least from my early Catholic Influences seem to suggest it. One thing I’ve noticed though, is that Jesus never really ever refers or expands on the Holy Spirit, while anyone but Jesus always refer to, how should I say , relationship with the Holy Spirit. Jesus always refers to God as The Father, while the Disciples never but call him a Son with the Holy Spirit because said connection or relation was so strong.

The Apostle Paul, love him or hate him, does seem to try to expand on the concept of a great spirit that permeates or pierces all things to the point, it sounds like The Force from Star Wars that seems everything.. For the Eastern schools, I’ll just simply refer to Chi, since Kindalini is sort of two step system involving not just Kundalini but Prana as well for simplicity. Now when it comes to Eastern Schools they usually tend to focus of detachment an flow of Chi, which is usually linkened to a said life force that can be guided or gathered an not so much controlled or invoked. The easiest summation I can think of or used is water being poured into a cup or pools flowing into other pools. The water being Chi, and the cup being a vessel(or body) that makes the water take shape, wether it half empty or full is up the users rising dragon(Yang)or crouching tiger(Yin). In some ways, it even described as steam or smoke even.

The only issue I have with Paul is that he makes it intangible an anxiety prone, where the East makes it out to be more tangible. Thing is there other eastern superstitions that I find are just as imposing or restrictive as Feng Shui for example an can go against them like a Wrathful Hebrew God. I personally think for whatever reason, the early church just wanted to differentiate itself from all other eastern influences due to Christianity being empowered as a state religion once upon a time, hoping to reap the same rewards possibly.

Just a few thoughts I wanted to share.

When it comes to mysticism it is hard to put it into logical quantum mechanical terms when concepts like Kundalini, chi and Prana become muddled together.

Thinking of it as an analogy for Direct Current and Alternating Current makes it easier for me. The nerve system have energy heat level (dc) with a vibrating energy pulse on top going back and forth making the nerves feel the flow of energy (ac). Vibrating energy gives the relaxation and tingle in the body.

originally posted by: Proto88
After watching enough Saturday Morning Cartoons or Animes, and a bunch of Carthuses from a few bible readings an other Eastern schools of thought. I’ve been leaning that the idea of the Holy Spirit is very much the same as the Easts concepts of Chi. Now where to start, so usually the Holy Spirit is basically deemed as something as Gods or Heavens will or response of acting on Earth, or at least from my early Catholic Influences seem to suggest it. One thing I’ve noticed though, is that Jesus never really ever refers or expands on the Holy Spirit, while anyone but Jesus always refer to, how should I say , relationship with the Holy Spirit. Jesus always refers to God as The Father, while the Disciples never but call him a Son with the Holy Spirit because said connection or relation was so strong.

The Apostle Paul, love him or hate him, does seem to try to expand on the concept of a great spirit that permeates or pierces all things to the point, it sounds like The Force from Star Wars that seems everything.. For the Eastern schools, I’ll just simply refer to Chi, since Kindalini is sort of two step system involving not just Kundalini but Prana as well for simplicity. Now when it comes to Eastern Schools they usually tend to focus of detachment an flow of Chi, which is usually linkened to a said life force that can be guided or gathered an not so much controlled or invoked. The easiest summation I can think of or used is water being poured into a cup or pools flowing into other pools. The water being Chi, and the cup being a vessel(or body) that makes the water take shape, wether it half empty or full is up the users rising dragon(Yang)or crouching tiger(Yin). In some ways, it even described as steam or smoke even.

The only issue I have with Paul is that he makes it intangible an anxiety prone, where the East makes it out to be more tangible. Thing is there other eastern superstitions that I find are just as imposing or restrictive as Feng Shui for example an can go against them like a Wrathful Hebrew God. I personally think for whatever reason, the early church just wanted to differentiate itself from all other eastern influences due to Christianity being empowered as a state religion once upon a time, hoping to reap the same rewards possibly.

Just a few thoughts I wanted to share.

The Holy Spirit is God. Not something separate. The Spirit is part of the way we can conceive of the fullness of God. The Holy Spirit is a full person, not a disembodied power for us to control.

a reply to: Proto88

When someone is filled with the holy spirit, they're emboldened to do and say things that are "right" or "good".

There's a child in that burning building, the holy spirit is on me (in me or with me) as I decide to run into the flames to save them. My adrenaline and feel good chemicals, mainly dopamine which makes you seek a reward, get triggered and spike in my bloodstream. God is with me.

Chi is like a physical energy flow. You can throw someone really far or bust through bricks with your hand if your chi is being utilized. It's like having superhero powers in a fight. It isn't emotional, it has nothing to do with right or wrong, the will of an entity, the greater good of all things.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

I don’t think the scientific method going to much help yet, since there’s nothing to work with to measure, an no one throwing fire balls or lightning with jazz hands.

Thing is though, they are completely different schools of thought, being somewhat independent of each other, while being the same thing at the same time. Kundalini belonging to the Hindi Yogic teachings with the chakras an bunch of stretching, Tai Chi an Qiqong are independent of each other too with there only being difference due to cultures. With studies about meditation an above art forms, the health benefits were minimal at best, far from anything biblical, but they made enough difference given enough attention. From what I remember Kundalini was often symbolized with fire an serpents while focusing on the idea of the soul, while the more oriental forms ignored any idea of the soul, but viewed said source as symbolic to that of water metaphors an the Dan Tiens. I think I came to the conclusion regarding Prana as just ordinary air or oxygen.

I tend use the chakra system with the Dan tiens for visualization, since it does have physiology accuracies with the technical simplicity of a schematic. As for the elemental breakdown, I tend to think of it like electricity since one analogy to usually describe electricity an circuits is water an piping.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yea but what purpose does that serve to make three different attributes, that end up being the same thing with not much elaboration? What function does the Son, Father, an Holy Spirit serve then if not just being parts of a bigger machine sort of speak?

What about the power of Christ compels me or holy water actually acting as hand sanitizer, cleansing all the Sin an cloth, when says science it filthy an might boost your immune system?

a reply to: Thrumbo

I’m not really trying to focus on morality or invoking Cthulhu, just more or less the semantics along with forms. With the eastern forms, they tend to focus on impermanence an detachment, methodically anyways. While such schools are technically are taboo to the West, as is East, I find they share similar goals, but to each their own.

Paul in passage says the Holy Spirit fills a temple, analogy not much different then a cup half full or runneth overth an th th.

With the West, from what I gather, surrendering to God is no different then going with the current, rather resisting it. It was better left untouched in their case compared to the East.

originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: chr0naut

Yea but what purpose does that serve to make three different attributes, that end up being the same thing with not much elaboration? What function does the Son, Father, an Holy Spirit serve then if not just being parts of a bigger machine sort of speak?

What about the power of Christ compels me or holy water actually acting as hand sanitizer, cleansing all the Sin an cloth, when says science it filthy an might boost your immune system?

I suppose it comes down to the size of what you assume to be God. If you classify God as just another human like person, you miss the truth because God cannot possibly be so limited.

To give an example of such a scale comparison, you wouldn't call the Internet "a computer". The Internet is something that arises from the interconnection of millions, if not billions, of individual computers.

In the same way, God is not just constrained by our concepts of individuality and personhood, but encompasses several aspects that go beyond our concepts of supreme personhood, linked deeply in ways we cannot fully conceive. God has a single unified identity, but is so great that we would see them as community, based upon our poor understanding.

For the purposes of 'doing magic', as most magical paradigms would define things, one might usually pit one 'supernatural being' against another, or against the rest of the pantheon, to achieve one's will. However, with a supreme monotheistic being, there is no division to exploit - no alternate authority to appeal to. God is beyond human conception.

Also, the idea of Trinity is also a post-Christ idea of the church. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is reference to the seven Spirits of God, so I think that limiting God to a Trinity may also be unbiblical.

But clearly, there are references to the Godhead consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the God, the Holy Spirit. So there is at least a Trinity there. Beyond that, I honestly don't really know.

a reply to: chr0naut

That quite an earnest opinion, an one I wasn’t expecting. I’ve usually buggered a few Christians regarding their Trinity, only to find they would be just as stumped as me. It only tries proves Christs relationship with God with lots of emphasis behind it but blindly. If I’m not mistaken, the Trinity might of came from Valentinus Gnostics, but was ostracized, then ended up being a widely accepted theory, if there any truth to it.

I’ve thought of the Trinity as being some lingual reference of sorts, referring to the body, mind an soul being separate yet completely whole, Jesus the body, the Father the Mind, an Holy Spirit being soul. Dare go to the realm that it might be a primitive analogy of Quantum Entanglement, like two particles interacting at a vast distance an time.

Too add some more controversy, water is mentioned 722 times in the Bible with two mythical interpretations, Living Waters, and there is metaphysical Well(s). It is often unclear what is the meaning of the Living Waters, an could be fresh water for all I really know but Pure could be used for that. There is mention of the living waters coming from the belly or stomach and along with one passage correlating it to the Wells of Salvation in the N.T. In an other, Jesus is described as being able to be drunk or drawn from, like he was a well.
Bible an Water passages

Where as the O.T is, I find Fire ends being more symbolized with Hebrews, not to mention the amount of Serpent symbolized that might have it origins from the East. Haven’t gone to depth from O.T perspective yet, but water is mentioned as well. There is also Zoroaster which is a different religion that emphasizes on both fire an water, yet they used a Rooster for some reason.

I might be right or wrong, given my unfamiliarity to being a Westerner, but the Stomach can be described as a Sea of Chi, which also get symbolized with water, with more implications of it being stored an circulated. A lot of of the more advanced meditations require heavier breathing an movement of the stomach, or the human diaphragm. Chakras also act as agitators, while Dan Tiens acts as store houses, but have the same location of 3 chakras. There is also Meng Mein which is said to act as a pump too.

originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: chr0naut

That quite an earnest opinion, an one I wasn’t expecting. I’ve usually buggered a few Christians regarding their Trinity, only to find they would be just as stumped as me. It only tries proves Christs relationship with God with lots of emphasis behind it but blindly. If I’m not mistaken, the Trinity might of came from Valentinus Gnostics, but was ostracized, then ended up being a widely accepted theory, if there any truth to it.

I’ve thought of the Trinity as being some lingual reference of sorts, referring to the body, mind an soul being separate yet completely whole, Jesus the body, the Father the Mind, an Holy Spirit being soul. Dare go to the realm that it might be a primitive analogy of Quantum Entanglement, like two particles interacting at a vast distance an time.

The processes and techniques of science and philosophy are reductionist, and they assume that we can delve down into subcomponents of something. However, such tools are fairly useless when dealing with holistics on the scale of God.

Even Kabbalah is reductionist, but just to a lesser degree than other conventional theologies, and so everything we could use to penetrate the mystery of God, fails in the face of superlatives which reveal our intellectual limitation.

I believe we must defer to the revealed nature of God, and beyond that, acknowledge our limits. This, of course, doesn't prevent us from contemplation of our individual place in the scheme of things - our duty, our sin, our redemption, and the grace we have been granted.

originally posted by: Proto88
Too add some more controversy, water is mentioned 722 times in the Bible with two mythical interpretations, Living Waters, and there is metaphysical Well(s). It is often unclear what is the meaning of the Living Waters, an could be fresh water for all I really know but Pure could be used for that. There is mention of the living waters coming from the belly or stomach and along with one passage correlating it to the Wells of Salvation in the N.T. In an other, Jesus is described as being able to be drunk or drawn from, like he was a well.
Bible an Water passages

Where as the O.T is, I find Fire ends being more symbolized with Hebrews, not to mention the amount of Serpent symbolized that might have it origins from the East. Haven’t gone to depth from O.T perspective yet, but water is mentioned as well. There is also Zoroaster which is a different religion that emphasizes on both fire an water, yet they used a Rooster for some reason.

I might be right or wrong, given my unfamiliarity to being a Westerner, but the Stomach can be described as a Sea of Chi, which also get symbolized with water, with more implications of it being stored an circulated. A lot of of the more advanced meditations require heavier breathing an movement of the stomach, or the human diaphragm. Chakras also act as agitators, while Dan Tiens acts as store houses, but have the same location of 3 chakras. There is also Meng Mein which is said to act as a pump too.

I think chi is something we may control, and has its origin within us.

It would be a mistake to confuse the creation with its Creator.

a reply to: Proto88

"Jesus the body, the Father the Mind, an Holy Spirit being soul."

Christians love quoting the following passage .... "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Christians believe those words spoken by Jesus originated from the mind and body of Jesus. They fail to realize the words originated from his awakened soul. If the words originated from an awakened soul then the identification "I am" and "me" is not Jesus body and mind. They identify all awakened souls (all souls exist on the one vine).

The "Son" is ones awakened soul made in the image of the Father.

The Father/Son relationship in Christianity is no different to the Brahman/Atman relationship in Hinduism. Only the awakened Atman can experience the universal Brahman.

What then is the holy spirit. The holy spirit in Aramaic is feminine. Only in translation is it recognized as masculine. Kundalini is also known to be a divine feminine energy. So it seems the holy spirit and kundalini could be one and the same.

But the point made by chr0naut is very interesting ....

"Even Kabbalah is reductionist, but just to a lesser degree than other conventional theologies, and so everything we could use to penetrate the mystery of God, fails in the face of superlatives which reveal our intellectual limitation."

In Hinduism the term "neti neti" (not this, not that) eludes that our minds will never be able to fathom God. We can only experience God through our awakened souls. The reductionist is therefore a means to lessen the barriers in our mind that exist between us and God. Not a means to fathom God with our minds.

Most people don't realize the eye of our "I AM" is our soul. Existing in the NOW experiencing life allows our soul to breath. Existing in past and future dreams/desires of the mind suffocates our soul.

I guess the biggest difference is that the holy spirit mentioned in the Bible comes from God, it is God's holy spirit. The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:​35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.​—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.

The spirit of God, “like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.”​—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine.

The Bible also refers to God’s holy spirit as his “hands” or “fingers.” (Psalm 8:3; 19:1; Luke 11:20; compare Matthew 12:28.) Just as a craftsman uses his hands and fingers to do his work, God has used his spirit to produce such results as the following:

- The universe.​—Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 66:​1, 2.

- The Bible.​—2 Peter 1:​20, 21.

- The miracles performed by his ancient servants and their zealous preaching.​—Luke 4:​18; Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:​4-​11.

- The fine qualities displayed by people who obey him.​—Galatians 5:​22, 23.

By referring to God’s spirit as his “hands,” “fingers,” or “breath,” the Bible shows that the holy spirit is not a person. (Exodus 15:​8, 10) A craftsman’s hands cannot function independent of his mind and body; likewise, God’s holy spirit operates only as he directs it. (Luke 11:13) The Bible also compares God’s spirit to water and associates it with such things as faith and knowledge. These comparisons all point to the impersonal nature of the holy spirit.​—Isaiah 44:3; Acts 6:5; 2 Corinthians 6:6.

The Bible gives the names of Jehovah God and of his Son, Jesus Christ; yet, nowhere does it name the holy spirit. (Isaiah 42:8; Luke 1:​31) When the Christian martyr Stephen was given a miraculous heavenly vision, he saw only two persons, not three. The Bible says: “He, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:​55) The holy spirit was God’s power in action, enabling Stephen to see the vision.

Misconceptions about the holy spirit

Misconception: The “Holy Ghost,” or holy spirit, is a person and is part of the Trinity, as stated at 1 John 5:​7, 8 in the King James version of the Bible.

Fact: The King James version of the Bible includes at 1 John 5:​7, 8 the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” However, researchers have found that those words were not written by the apostle John and so do not belong in the Bible. Professor Bruce M. Metzger wrote: “That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain.”​—A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Misconception: The Bible personifies the holy spirit, and this proves that it is a person.

Fact: The Scriptures do at times personify the holy spirit, but this does not prove that the holy spirit is a person. The Bible also personifies wisdom, death, and sin. (Proverbs 1:​20; Romans 5:​17, 21) For example, wisdom is said to have “works” and “children,” and sin is depicted as seducing, killing, and working out covetousness.​—Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:​35; Romans 7:​8, 11.

Similarly, when the apostle John quoted Jesus, he personified the holy spirit as a “helper” (paraclete) that would give evidence, guide, speak, hear, declare, glorify, and receive. He used masculine personal pronouns such as “he” or “him” when referring to that “helper.” (John 16:​7-​15) However, he did so because the Greek word for “helper” (pa·raʹkle·tos) is a masculine noun and requires a masculine pronoun according to the rules of Greek grammar. When John referred to the holy spirit using the neuter noun pneuʹma, he used the genderless pronoun “it.”​—John 14:16, 17.

Misconception: Baptism in the name of the holy spirit proves that it is a person.

Fact: The Bible sometimes uses “name” to stand for power or authority. (Deuteronomy 18:​5, 19-​22; Esther 8:​10) This is similar to its use in the English expression “in the name of the law,” which does not mean that the law is a person. A person who is baptized “in the name of” the holy spirit recognizes the power and role of the holy spirit in accomplishing God’s will.​—Matthew 28:19.

Misconception: Jesus’ apostles and other early disciples believed that the holy spirit was a person.

Fact: The Bible does not say that, nor does history. The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person . . . came at the Council of Constantinople in ad 381.” This was over 250 years after the last of the apostles had died.

originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: chr0naut

That quite an earnest opinion, an one I wasn’t expecting. I’ve usually buggered a few Christians regarding their Trinity, only to find they would be just as stumped as me. It only tries proves Christs relationship with God with lots of emphasis behind it but blindly. If I’m not mistaken, the Trinity might of came from Valentinus Gnostics, but was ostracized, then ended up being a widely accepted theory, if there any truth to it.

I’ve thought of the Trinity as being some lingual reference of sorts, referring to the body, mind an soul being separate yet completely whole, Jesus the body, the Father the Mind, an Holy Spirit being soul. Dare go to the realm that it might be a primitive analogy of Quantum Entanglement, like two particles interacting at a vast distance an time.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

It traces back all the way to ancient Babylon. Other ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide as well, such as concerning an immaterial immortal soul. “Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40)

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?

...

Historical Background

In the middle of the second century C.E., professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war. Writes historian Paul Johnson: “[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and so it continued. . . . The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries AD swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to propagate themselves. . . . From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common.”

During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish. To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture.

This trend came to fruition in the writings of Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.), a Greek author from Alexandria. Origen’s treatise On First Principles was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely.

Writers and Orators

Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Emperor Constantine. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians, most of them writing in Greek, worked out in a long and bitter debate what was to be the distinguishing doctrine of Christendom, the Trinity. Chief among them were Athanasius, the assertive bishop of Alexandria, and three church leaders from Cappadocia, Asia Minor​—Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus.

Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence. Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom (meaning “Golden-Mouthed”) in Greek as well as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo in Latin were consummate orators, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine. His theological treatises have pervasively shaped the “Christian” thinking of today. Jerome, the period’s most distinguished man of letters, was chiefly responsible for the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible from the original languages.

However, important questions are: Did those Church Fathers adhere closely to the Bible? In their teaching, did they hold fast to the inspired Scriptures? Are their writings a safe guide to an accurate knowledge of God?

Teachings of God or Teachings of Men?

Recently, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Methodius of Pisidia wrote the book The Hellenic Pedestal of Christianity in order to show that Greek culture and philosophy provided the infrastructure of modern “Christian” thought. In that book, he unhesitantly admits: “Almost all the prominent Church Fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths.”

Take, for example, the idea that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit make up the Trinity. Many Church Fathers after the Council of Nicaea became staunch Trinitarians. Their writings and expositions were crucial to making the Trinity a landmark doctrine of Christendom. However, is the Trinity found in the Bible? No. So where did the Church Fathers get it? A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity affirms: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”*

Or consider the teaching of the immortality of the soul, a belief that some part of man lives on after the body dies. Again, the Church Fathers were instrumental in introducing this notion to a religion that had no teaching about a soul surviving death. The Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning​—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) What was the basis for the Church Fathers’ belief in an 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 in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia. And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”#

The Solid Basis of Christian Truth

After even this brief examination of the historical backdrop of the Church Fathers, as well as the origins of their teachings, it is appropriate to ask, Should a sincere Christian base his or her beliefs on the teachings of the Church Fathers? Let the Bible answer.

...

CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS

“The Orthodox Church . . . has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom,” states the writer Kallistos, who is a monk. Did these Church Fathers base their teachings on the inspired Scriptures? Regarding Basil the Great, the book The Fathers of the Greek Church states: “His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’” The same was true of Gregory of Nazianzus. “In his view the victory and the superiority of the Church would best be shown in its complete adoption of the traditions of classical culture.”

Regarding all three of them, Professor Panagiotis K. Christou writes: “While they occasionally caution against ‘philosophy and empty deception’ [Colossians 2:8]​—in order to be in harmony with the commandment of the New Testament—​they, at the same time, eagerly study philosophy and the relevant disciplines and even recommend the study of them to others.” Obviously, such church teachers thought that the Bible was not enough to support their ideas. Could their seeking other pillars of authority mean that their teachings were foreign to the Bible? The apostle Paul warned Hebrew Christians: “Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings.”​—Hebrews 13:9.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA​—A CONTROVERSIAL CHURCH FATHER

One of the most controversial figures among Church Fathers is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375-444 C.E.). Church historian Hans von Campenhausen describes him as “dogmatic, violent, and cunning, permeated by the greatness of his calling and the dignity of his office,” and adds that “he never considered anything as right unless it was useful to him in the furtherance of his power and authority . . . The brutality and unscrupulousness of his methods never depressed him.” While he was bishop of Alexandria, Cyril used bribery, libel, and slander in order to depose the bishop of Constantinople. He is considered responsible for the brutal murder in 415 C.E. of a renowned philosopher named Hypatia. Regarding Cyril’s theological writings, Campenhausen says: “He initiated the practice of deciding questions of belief not solely on the basis of the Bible but with the aid of appropriate quotations and collections of quotations from acknowledged authorities.”

Tip: Don't get your information concerning the most important things from these types or those teaching their doctrines of men and demons, “the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.”(1 Timothy 4:1,2).):Get it from these: