Paul and Revalation....


Where in the bible does it state to practice patience with a fool? It doesn't, however it does say to put a fool away from you in the NT. It does say mark the idiots and avoid them.

Where does it say to turn the other cheek? To forgive those who spitefully use you? Where does it say to give a man your cloak if he asks for it? You talk a good game, but when it comes to applying biblical principles, you fail miserably and you know it.
 
Bruh, Matt 10:28 says that either you are wrong or Jesus is wrong. You say that the death of the body will result in the death of the soul. Jesus say that in that verse that the body and the soul can encounter separate deaths. Which of you should we believe?
Still holding hope on that one verse I see. I see you dare not quote the many verses I listed.

Thankfully, you are wrong. If you were right, then conversion never occurred. I have the same body, but I am most certainly not the same person. The person is what was converted.

I can say I'm converted till I'm blue in the face, but I'm still flesh and blood. You're no different than you were before conversion, except in your mind. That has nothing to do with your physical body. You're mixing apples and oranges.

The word human [humus => dirt / man => spirit] literally means "spirit in dirt", rendering "human spirit" to actually be redundant. So, all of us are made of spirit and we live in bodies, by definition.

I told you that already. There's no need of a third entity. We're simply composed of physical flesh and a human spirit.

Sir, it is no struggle. Some things are just definitive. Let's look again, shall we?
[*]Matt 10:28 - the body can be killed and the soul left alive
[*]1 Thess 5 - budy, soul, and spirit define man as tripartite, each of the 3 with its own existence.
Then the bible is contradicting itself (which I already know). If you're correct, then the Old Testament and New Testament verses I mentioned are rendered null and void.

[*]Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. [What died when the eating occurred? It was not the body.]
Adam lived to be 900 plus years old, THEN he died. His punishment was that he had the death penalty over his head the very DAY he sinned. You're reading something else totally into the meaning. The day Adam ate, he brought on death. Before then, death was not set aside for humans.

[*]Gen 25:17 And these [are] the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. [Where was that?]
Simply means he gave up the spirit and was buried with his people. Nothing more, nothing less. You're reading totally different meanings into simple verses.

[*]Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

No soul is mentioned, only flesh and spirit.

[*]Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, [Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. [Where did it go?]


Jesus' spirit went to god as he had just said when he said, "I commend my spirit". He mentions nothing about a soul. The terms "spirit" and "ghost" are sometimes interchangeable.

[*]Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. [Were these dead bodies that heard His Word?]
Says nothing about a soul.
I don't know why you're listing all of these verses which do nothing but support what I've been saying.

[*]Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: How do bodies believe after they are dead?]
This is getting a bit boring now. Jesus was speaking spiritually. He said "SHALL live", which denotes a future life of eternity. Sinners are dead, but after conversion, they're given eternal life, not now, but at the resurrection. Again, it says nothing about a soul.

[*]Jhn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? [Something never dies. What could that be? It is not the body?

The human spirit doesn't die. In this case Jesus was talking about eternal life for the future at the first resurrection. He didn't mention any soul. You're implying that that's what he was talking about eventhough he didn't.
Besides, if the soul is already alive, what's the purpose of a resurrection?

[*]Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? "[Some part of them was dead while their bodies were still alive. What was that?]
They were spiritually dead. They were alive in the flesh, but since they weren't converted, they were considered to be spiritually dead. This has nothing to do with a soul, it has to do with a spiritual principle. You're getting the two mixed up. You should've learned this in bible study 101.

[*]Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; [Some part of them/us was dead while their bodies were still alive. What was that?]

You're still confused. They were once spiritually dead, but after conversion, they were considered to be alive spiritually. This has nothing to do with a soul and it doesn't mention the term soul. You're still reading something into the verses that's just not there.
I'm shocked that you don't understand basic biblical teachings about physical death and spiritual death, I really am.

[*]Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) [Some part of them/us was dead while their bodies were still alive...but the part that was dead was made alive. What was that?]

Again, they were spiritually dead due to sin, but after conversion, they were no longer under the death penalty. This has nothing to do with a soul. If the person went back into sin by backsliding, they would be back under the death penalty as before. This has nothing to do with any soul.

[*]Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. [Jesus' soul went into hell but His body was still in the grave. Hmm.]
Dacon, I see you tried to sneak this one in, but you couldn't. The word "hell" means "the grave". Christ's body was not left in the grave and his body did not see corruption. This verse proves that both "soul" and "flesh" are one and the same.

Bottom line: some part of me was dead because of sin while my body was still alive. Some part of an unbeliever will go into Hell while his body remains in the earth.

Sir, Matt 10:28 denotes the fire of Hell will be able to destroy both the body and the soul. Does that mean that the fire will ONLY be physical? I don't know but it seems that the answer should be NO. Once again, I have no intentions of finding out.

Again, I don't know why you listed all those verses, neither saying that the soul and body are different.

Again, you mentioned none of the many verses I quoted. As a matter of fact, you made the bible look more foolish than it is. You're claiming that the soul is separate from the body, while dozens of verses show that the soul and body are one and the same. That one verse you're holding onto in Matthew 10 is all you have. When you analyze that verse, it clearly shows that body and soul are interchangeable, thus leaving you with no grounds to stand on.

I'm really surprised that you don't understand the meanings of physical death versus spiritually death. I tried to enlighten you a bit more this time, and I don't even have god's spirit. Now how is that?
 
Last edited:



RB

How many time have you visited (once)? The Sunday you attended was a special function with a minister from a different congregation.

You asked specific questions and I answerd your questions. It appears that you are afraid of something (the truth).


To use the apostles as an example (justification) of individuals is a poor example, that was a different time, place and circumstance. Back then they had to carry weapons because of theire mode of transportation. We no longer walk miles or days to visit others or ride donkeys.

The bible says there is nothing new under the sun, and if you had to carry a weapon back in the day for protection, it's certain you would have to carry a gun today for protection. Did not Christ say the end will be like it was in the time of Noah? This is common sense.
 
You don't even know your bible. Paul's name was Saul when he committed the crimes. After his conversion, while on the road to Damascus, you never heard of him physically harming anyone, in spite of others trying to harm him.

As for Peter, he wasn't converted and the holy spirit had not yet been given. After Pentecost, you never heard of Peter physically attacking anyone.
You need to brush up on your bible study. Nothing but pure hypocrisy spewing from you....pure hypocrisy.

I know my bible well enough to know Paul/Saul is the same man, regardles of name change. In other words, Paul/Saul's finger prints will forever remain on the weapon he used to commit murder.
 
Where does it say to turn the other cheek? To forgive those who spitefully use you? Where does it say to give a man your cloak if he asks for it? You talk a good game, but when it comes to applying biblical principles, you fail miserably and you know it.

Yes, we are instructed to turn the other cheek if we create a problem, but it someone just walk up to you threatning you and disrutping your place of work.......then we are instructed to handle business. It's called common sense JayRob.

Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The wrong teaching of these verses of revenge turns many away from Christianity. The subject here is the law, and how it applies to God's elect. In this section of revenge, Jesus is saying that if someone loses their temper, when you are talking with them, and hits you on the cheek, forgive him for that action. This has nothing to do with someone hitting you for no reason at all. You don't tolerate that, and that is not what Jesus is talking about here. The defending ones self, is called self defense, and is required by law. Use common sense in dealing with God's law, and the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I practice forgiveness, and I also practice "CORRECTION".

Matthew 5:40 "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also."

If a man sues you for your outer garment, give him your inner garment also.
http://www.theseason.org/matthew/matthew5.htm
 
Yes, we are instructed to turn the other cheek if we create a problem, but it someone just walk up to you threatning you and disrutping your place of work.......then we are instructed to handle business. It's called common sense JayRob.

Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The wrong teaching of these verses of revenge turns many away from Christianity. The subject here is the law, and how it applies to God's elect. In this section of revenge, Jesus is saying that if someone loses their temper, when you are talking with them, and hits you on the cheek, forgive him for that action. This has nothing to do with someone hitting you for no reason at all. You don't tolerate that, and that is not what Jesus is talking about here. The defending ones self, is called self defense, and is required by law. Use common sense in dealing with God's law, and the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I practice forgiveness, and I also practice "CORRECTION".

Matthew 5:40 "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also."

If a man sues you for your outer garment, give him your inner garment also.
http://www.theseason.org/matthew/matthew5.htm

RB, you can try your best to dress up violence and thuggery all you want to. It just shows all the more how hypocritical and dishonest you are, as well as that so-called pastor called Murray. No matter how you spin it, this has H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E written all over it.
 
I know my bible well enough to know Paul/Saul is the same man, regardles of name change. In other words, Paul/Saul's finger prints will forever remain on the weapon he used to commit murder.

You say you know your bible, then I say show me where Stephen, Peter and Paul used flat out violence against their fellow man AFTER their conversion. No excuses, just show me.
 
RB, you can try your best to dress up violence and thuggery all you want to. It just shows all the more how hypocritical and dishonest you are, as well as that so-called pastor called Murray. No matter how you spin it, this has H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E written all over it.

It's hypocritical to you because you hate Christ. Every time you post, your hatred is exposed, and you make attempts to cover it up by calling Christians hypocrites.

The good book says "EVERY" knee will bow to Christ when He return. Is the good book a lie? Will you not bow when Christ return as King of the world?
 
You say you know your bible, then I say show me where Stephen, Peter and Paul used flat out violence against their fellow man AFTER their conversion. No excuses, just show me.


I'm not in the business of showing you what I know, I'm in the business of helping you find a place for the Savior in your heart. You're a lost soul, and I want to see you in the eternity JayRob, but that takes action on your part. Come join us!
 
I'm not in the business of showing you what I know, I'm in the business of helping you find a place for the Savior in your heart. You're a lost soul, and I want to see you in the eternity JayRob, but that takes action on your part. Come join us!

So, you can't show me? I thought so.
How can you let a man who doesn't have the holy spirit prove to you that your biblical interpretation was in error? How is that possible?
 
It's hypocritical to you because you hate Christ. Every time you post, your hatred is exposed, and you make attempts to cover it up by calling Christians hypocrites.

The good book says "EVERY" knee will bow to Christ when He return. Is the good book a lie? Will you not bow when Christ return as King of the world?

RB, why would I hate something that never existed? Please explain that to me.
I wasn't calling Christians hypocrites, I was clearly referring to you and this Murray fellow as pure hypocrites because, as you admitted, you teach one thing about "love" and then turn right around and do something else when the going gets tough. That's hypocritical.

As far as bowing to a fictitious character, I'll leave that for you and others to do. Slavery is over and done with, but you can go on being sheepish slaves to imaginary characters in a book that's full of holes and errors, whose characters and stories are no more real than the characters of Jack and the Beanstalk.
 
...Again, I don't know why you listed all those verses, neither saying that the soul and body are different.

Again, you mentioned none of the many verses I quoted. As a matter of fact, you made the bible look more foolish than it is. You're claiming that the soul is separate from the body, while dozens of verses show that the soul and body are one and the same. That one verse you're holding onto in Matthew 10 is all you have. When you analyze that verse, it clearly shows that body and soul are interchangeable, thus leaving you with no grounds to stand on.

I'm really surprised that you don't understand the meanings of physical death versus spiritually death. I tried to enlighten you a bit more this time, and I don't even have god's spirit. Now how is that?

Alrighty then...let's see what you had to say:
Dacon, the doctrine of an immortal soul is not biblical at all. The soul is not spiritual at all. It's purely physical. Here's the evidence.....

English: Soul; Hebrew: Nephesh; Greek: Psuche; Latin: Anima-

-Young's Concordance defines both nephesh and psuche as "animal soul."

-Strong's Concordance defines nephesh as, "A breathing creature, an animal; or, abstractly, vitality."
Psuche likewise defines as "The animal, sentient principle."


It is clear from the words used to translate it that it is related throughout to ANIMAL BODIES, including man.

...

Now, let's see what else Strong had to say.
nephesh (neh'-fesh); from OT:5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):
KJV - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, dead (-ly), desire, [dis-] contented, fish, ghost, greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thyself-), them (your)- selves, slay, soul, tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, would have it.
psuche (psoo-khay'); from NT:5594; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from [pneuma], which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from [zoe], which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [nephesh], [ruwach] and [chay]):
KJV - heart (+-ily), life, mind, soul, us, you.​

And Webster.
SENTIENT
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling​

So, while the Hebrew nephesh can be either body and soul as an entity or body or soul as two separate entities, Greeks use psuche to distinguish the inner-self the the exclusion of the body.
With that in mind, let's look at your scripture references.
...Soul has nothing to do with anything spiritual. For example:
Psa. 22:20: "Deliver my soul (nephesh) from the sword..." [Yep...carcass]
Jer. 38:17: "If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the King of Babylon's princes, then thy soul (nephesh) shall live..." [Yep...carcass]
1 Sam. 19:11: "If thou save not thy life (nepheshsoul) tonight, tomorrow thou shalt be slain." [Nope. By Hebrew grammar structure nephesh must be the inner-self here since chayaw is used in the latter part of the verse to reference the body.]
I Kings 19:10: "...they seek my life (nephesh) to take it." [Yep...carcass]
Esther 7:7: "Haman stood up to make request for his life (nephesh)..." [Yep...carcass]
Psa. 22:29: "...none can keep alive his own soul (nephesh)." [Yep...Christ's carcass]
Num. 6:6: "... he shall come at no dead body (nephesh). [Yep...carcass]
Lev. 21:11: "Neither shall he go in to any dead body (nephesh)..." [Yep...carcass]
Rev. 16:3: .,every living soul (psuche) died in the sea." [No body. Definition of psuche.]
Phil. 2:30: "...for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, NOT REGARDING his life (psuche)..." [No body. Definition of psuche.]
(Mark 3:4):"...is it lawful ... on the Sabbath ...to save life (psuche), or to kill? ... " [No body. Definition of psuche. Speaking to their sentience provoked the Pharisees to want to kill Jesus.]

The word "soul" was turned into something spiritual by Greek philosophers.
...
First, let's go ahead and look at the inaccuracy of your last statement. Greek had a words in the common language (koinia) to distinguish the soul from the body while Hebrew still does not today.
Second, there are about 400 instances in the OT where nephesh is speaking of the inner-self and not the body. Your examples only include 1 of them. Interestingly, there are also about 400 in the OT that DO
speak distinctly of the body. You identified 6 of them.

Third, psyche is the modern form of psuche, and we know it to be relevant to ones mind, will, and emotions apart from the body. So your contention
Dacon, the doctrine of an immortal soul is not biblical at all. The soul is not spiritual at all. It's purely physical. Here's the evidence.....
clearly holds no water.

...In addition, hell fire is physical, so how can something physical destroy something spiritual? It's not possible. According to the bible, a soul can be destroyed in hell fire, therefore the soul HAS to be physical.
...
As I said in another post, we don't know the COMPOSITION of hell fire, so we don't know its limits.
 
So, you can't show me? I thought so.
How can you let a man who doesn't have the holy spirit prove to you that your biblical interpretation was in error? How is that possible?

JayRob, Peter was a "DISCIPLE" of Christ. Was he not? The "DISCIPLES" were carrying weapons arround Christ. Were they not? Not one time did Christ chastise the "DISCIPLE" for carrying weapons......not once. In fact, Christ could have protected Himself, but He allowed the "DISCIPLES" to carry weapons. The reason is because Christ taught the "DISCIPLES" to practice common sense. In fact, I too practice carrying a weapon for protection. I had a weapon on me this past friday when I went to Eddie's fish house at 9:30pm. As soon as I walk out of Eddie's, two dudes ask me for money. I acted like I was searching for money in my pocket, and I opened my coat just enough so they can see my 45 caliber.......and told them I aint got nothin......common sense.
 
JayRob, Peter was a "DISCIPLE" of Christ. Was he not? The "DISCIPLES" were carrying weapons arround Christ. Were they not? Not one time did Christ chastise the "DISCIPLE" for carrying weapons......not once. In fact, Christ could have protected Himself, but He allowed the "DISCIPLES" to carry weapons. The reason is because Christ taught the "DISCIPLES" to practice common sense. In fact, I too practice carrying a weapon for protection. I had a weapon on me this past friday when I went to Eddie's fish house at 9:30pm. As soon as I walk out of Eddie's, two dudes ask me for money. I acted like I was searching for money in my pocket, and I opened my coat just enough so they can see my 45 caliber.......and told them I aint got nothin......common sense.

RB

Not all the disciples carried "weaponsâ€￾ you need to really examine the context of the scriptures. Among all the disciples with Jesus there were only two weapons “swordsâ€￾ and Peter had one. Peter was hotheaded and why would he cut off the rear of a servant and not attack one of the solders. Not only that he was confused as to the mission of Jesus, his actions were not inconsistent with this mentality.


Luke 22:36-38

They said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords
 
So, while the Hebrew nephesh can be either body and soul as an entity or body or soul as two separate entities, Greeks use psuche to distinguish the inner-self the the exclusion of the body.
With that in mind, let's look at your scripture references.
First, let's go ahead and look at the inaccuracy of your last statement. Greek had a words in the common language (koinia) to distinguish the soul from the body while Hebrew still does not today.

Show me where in the Old Testament is there a clear-cut description and teaching of an immortal soul. That's all I ask. No excuses, just show me.

Second, there are about 400 instances in the OT where nephesh is speaking of the inner-self and not the body. Your examples only include 1 of them. Interestingly, there are also about 400 in the OT that DO
speak distinctly of the body. You identified 6 of them.

The inner self simply means the emotions of a person, which has to do with the human spirit. No soul is needed for that. Where is the term immortal soul mentioned in the Bible?

1 Sam. 19:11: "If thou save not thy life (nepheshsoul) tonight, tomorrow thou shalt be slain." [Nope. By Hebrew grammar structure nephesh must be the inner-self here since chayaw is used in the latter part of the verse to reference the body.]

The above verse clearly refers to something physical by virtue of the content of the verses before and after as well as the verse itself. You simply looked at that one verse and ran with it. It seems that you didn't bother to read the verses before and after, which would've cleared up the matter. Those verses are as follows:
"9And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
10And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin: but he slipped away out of Saul's presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.
11Saul also sent messengers unto David's house, to watch him, and to slay him in the morning: and Michal David's wife told him, saying, If thou save not thy life to night, to morrow thou shalt be slain.
12So Michal let David down through a window: and he went, and fled, and escaped.


The above verses clearly show that this entire scenario was referring to David's physical life. It said and hinted at nothing of the kind about anything spiritual.

Rev. 16:3: .,every living soul (psuche) died in the sea." [No body. Definition of psuche.]

How can a sea destroy a soul? I thought you said that was reserved strictly for hell fire? Which is it? A sea of water and hell fire can both destroy souls?

Phil. 2:30: "...for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, NOT REGARDING his life (psuche)..." [No body. Definition of psuche.]

Again, you failed to read the preceding verses which are verses 25-30....

25"But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. 26For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. 27Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. 28Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. 29Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, 30 because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me."

The above verses clearly refer to this man's physical life. It had nothing to do anything remotely spiritual as you implied.

(Mark 3:4):"...is it lawful ... on the Sabbath ...to save life (psuche), or to kill? ... " [No body. Definition of psuche. Speaking to their sentience provoked the Pharisees to want to kill Jesus.]

Again, you didn't take into account the verses before and after. If you would've then you would've known that it's speaking of physical healing, physical flesh and physical life. Nothing about a soul or anything spiritual is mentioned.
Inner self doesn't mean that it's an immortal soul. Again, you're reading something immortal that's not there at all. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand that the doctrine of the immortal soul came from other religions and was incorporated into the New Testament by the Greeks and continued by the Catholic Church. Researchers of religions have shown this to be true.

Third, psyche is the modern form of psuche, and we know it to be relevant to ones mind, will, and emotions apart from the body. So your contention clearly holds no water.

As I clearly showed you above, the terms meant for "psuche", clearly meant something physical.

The purpose of the human spirit is to impart mind, will, emotions apart from the body. Christians claim that this is what the holy spirit imparts from god, which is his mind, his will and character. If this is true, then why is it so farfetched not to see and understand that the human spirit imparts and stores similar characteristics separate from the body?

As I said in another post, we don't know the COMPOSITION of hell fire, so we don't know its limits.

I know the composition of hell. It's hot air. If it's fire, then it's composed of hot air and oxygen and something physical to keep it going. All of these other fairy-tale stories of what an everburning fire is, is pure fiction.

Again, I don't have any holy spirit, but I can read and comprehend simple terms and verses without such a need.
 



JayRob, Peter was a "DISCIPLE" of Christ. Was he not? The "DISCIPLES" were carrying weapons arround Christ. Were they not? Not one time did Christ chastise the "DISCIPLE" for carrying weapons......not once. In fact, Christ could have protected Himself, but He allowed the "DISCIPLES" to carry weapons. The reason is because Christ taught the "DISCIPLES" to practice common sense. In fact, I too practice carrying a weapon for protection. I had a weapon on me this past friday when I went to Eddie's fish house at 9:30pm. As soon as I walk out of Eddie's, two dudes ask me for money. I acted like I was searching for money in my pocket, and I opened my coat just enough so they can see my 45 caliber.......and told them I aint got nothin......common sense.

Blah, blah blah, you're avoiding the subject. Show me where Peter and Paul attacked others with physical weapons AFTER their conversion which was on/after the day of Pentecost). That's all I asked. If you don't know the answer, just say so and move on.
I think you know the answer, but it goes against the grain of what your pastor did, so you don't want to embarass him nor yourself.
 
Last edited:
RB

Not all the disciples carried "weapons” you need to really examine the context of the scriptures. Among all the disciples with Jesus there were only two weapons “swords” and Peter had one. Peter was hotheaded and why would he cut off the rear of a servant and not attack one of the solders. Not only that he was confused as to the mission of Jesus, his actions were not inconsistent with this mentality.


Luke 22:36-38

They said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords

Dr. H, it matters not if they carried swords before their conversion. They still weren't converted. After the coming of the holy spirit on Pentecost, that's when they received their true conversion. From that time on, there's no recorded history where they attacked others violently.

Simply put, RB can't show ONE place in the New Testament where the disciples used violence toward another person. If he could've, he would've shown it days ago. I'm not even a Christian and DON'T purport to have any holy spirit and I know that much.
 
Last edited:
Show me where in the Old Testament is there a clear-cut description and teaching of an immortal soul. That's all I ask. No excuses, just show me...
You have chosen to ignore the linguistics of what does not appear to be your native tongue. Consequently, you will remain lodged in your current position.


..The inner self simply means the emotions of a person, which has to do with the human spirit. No soul is needed for that. Where is the term immortal soul mentioned in the Bible?...
  • In Matt 26:38, emotions are associated with psuche.
  • In John 13:21, emotions are associated with pneuma.
  • In Psalm 42:11, emotions are associated with nephesh.
  • In 1 Kings 21:5, emotions are associated with ruwach.

As for the soul's immortality, the inference is in 1 Kings 17:21.

19 And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
20 And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
21 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 [nephesh] come into him again.

Elijah carries the kid's body and stretches out on top of it. He does not pray for the kid's body to come into his body again. His nephesh had left and Elijah asks for its return. You can handle the rest.

...The above verse clearly refers to something physical by virtue of the content of the verses before and after as well as the verse itself. You simply looked at that one verse and ran with it. It seems that you didn't bother to read the verses before and after, which would've cleared up the matter. Those verses are as follows:
"9And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
10And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin: but he slipped away out of Saul's presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.
11Saul also sent messengers unto David's house, to watch him, and to slay him in the morning: and Michal David's wife told him, saying, If thou save not thy life to night, to morrow thou shalt be slain.
12So Michal let David down through a window: and he went, and fled, and escaped.


The above verses clearly show that this entire scenario was referring to David's physical life. It said and hinted at nothing of the kind about anything spiritual.
...
Wrong. What your conclusion shows is that you have not studied Hebrew. If you had you would understand the distinction of the use of nephesh and chayaw in the same sentence.

...How can a sea destroy a soul? I thought you said that was reserved strictly for hell fire? Which is it? A sea of water and hell fire can both destroy souls?
...
First, let me correct you. I never said how souls would be destroyed. YOU contended that they could not be destroyed by fire. I simply said that we don't know what the composition of that fire is and could not determine its limits.
Secondly, the picture given here is not that the sea destroyed the souls; rather it is the contents of the vial: the wrath of God.


...Again, you failed to read the preceding verses which are verses 25-30....

25"But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. 26For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. 27Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. 28Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. 29Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, 30 because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me."

The above verses clearly refer to this man's physical life. It had nothing to do anything remotely spiritual as you implied.

Again, you didn't take into account the verses before and after. If you would've then you would've known that it's speaking of physical healing, physical flesh and physical life. Nothing about a soul or anything spiritual is mentioned.
Inner self doesn't mean that it's an immortal soul. Again, you're reading something immortal that's not there at all. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand that the doctrine of the immortal soul came from other religions and was incorporated into the New Testament by the Greeks and continued by the Catholic Church. Researchers of religions have shown this to be true.
...
I guess you haven't taken any courses in Greek either. [Sigh]


...As I clearly showed you above, the terms meant for "psuche", clearly meant something physical.

The purpose of the human spirit is to impart mind, will, emotions apart from the body. Christians claim that this is what the holy spirit imparts from god, which is his mind, his will and character. If this is true, then why is it so farfetched not to see and understand that the human spirit imparts and stores similar characteristics separate from the body?...
As the Greek language points out, psuche has nothing to do with the physical. When your command of the language warrants recapitulaiton of its definitions, you will have much more credibility.



...I know the composition of hell. It's hot air. If it's fire, then it's composed of hot air and oxygen and something physical to keep it going. All of these other fairy-tale stories of what an everburning fire is, is pure fiction.

Again, I don't have any holy spirit, but I can read and comprehend simple terms and verses without such a need.
I agree with part of what you say: you don't have any holy spirit. Here are some reminders.

Rom 8:5-7
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit .
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
KJV

1 Cor 1:21-29
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV

There is still time and I have great hope for you. As smart as you are and as much as you are willing to contribute, you are going to be very effective man once you're converted.
 
Blah, blah blah, you're avoiding the subject. Show me where Peter and Paul attacked others with physical weapons AFTER their conversion which was on/after the day of Pentecost). That's all I asked. If you don't know the answer, just say so and move on.
I think you know the answer, but it goes against the grain of what your pastor did, so you don't want to embarass him nor yourself.

Peter converted when Christ said follow me. What part of that don't you understand? Peter sliced a man's ear off after his conversion. In fact, we would have "NEVER" known the disciples carried weapons, had it not been for the fact that Peter sliced a man's ear off. Having said that, the bible doesn't tell us each disciple that carried a weapon.

You're soft JayRob, just admit it.
 
Peter converted when Christ said follow me. What part of that don't you understand? Peter sliced a man's ear off after his conversion. In fact, we would have "NEVER" known the disciples carried weapons, had it not been for the fact that Peter sliced a man's ear off. Having said that, the bible doesn't tell us each disciple that carried a weapon.

You're soft JayRob, just admit it.

RB, it seems the more you post, the more it shows you don't understand the fictitious book called the bible. When did the apostles receive the holy spirit? At the day of Pentecost that's when. That was several days after Christ's supposed ascension.

Before anyone receives the holy spirit, they're not capable of following supposed spiritual laws. If they can, what's the use of even receiving this supposed holy spirit? It's either one or the other.

And in response to you calling me soft, I'll respond by saying "you're a hypocritical, violent and double-minded supposed Christian, who gives other Christians a bad name. Go ahead and shoot people who disturb sermons if that's your wish, but I guarantee you that you won't find any record of the apostles doing such nonsense AFTER they were converted.
 
Last edited:
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Jesus Christ doesn't exist? Yes or No

RB, as long as I've been posting here, you should know my stance on the subject. I think you do know, you're just trying to divert from you and your pastor being called out for hypocrisy.

If you want to know the answer to the question you asked, review my many posts on the subject.
 
Last edited:
You have chosen to ignore the linguistics of what does not appear to be your native tongue. Consequently, you will remain lodged in your current position.
[*]In Matt 26:38, emotions are associated with psuche.
[*]In John 13:21, emotions are associated with pneuma.
[*]In Psalm 42:11, emotions are associated with nephesh.
[*]In 1 Kings 21:5, emotions are associated with ruwach.

No, you have chosen to ignore basic scriptural context, which is just as important as anything else. The verses you mistook for something spiritual, clearly were referring to physical life.

As for the soul's immortality, the inference is in 1 Kings 17:21.

19 And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
20 And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
21 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 [nephesh] come into him again.

Elijah carries the kid's body and stretches out on top of it. He does not pray for the kid's body to come into his body again. His nephesh had left and Elijah asks for its return. You can handle the rest.

Again, you're taking basic words out of context and you're not telling the truth by omission. Nephesh can simply mean "breath". All Elijah was doing was praying for breath to re-enter the child again because the child had died. It has nothing to do with a soul. He's praying for breath (oxygen) to enter the child again, nothing more, nothing less.

Wrong. What your conclusion shows is that you have not studied Hebrew. If you had you would understand the distinction of the use of nephesh and chayaw in the same sentence.

It amazes me that you even try and refute what I said after I showed you the context of each verse you listed. It seems you simply don't want to be wrong, that's all there is to it. I know it's hard to publicly admit that you were mistaken, but shouldn't having the holy spirit make that announcement easier? I do recall that one of the fruits is humility. No one will hold that apology against you. I certainly won't.

First, let me correct you. I never said how souls would be destroyed. YOU contended that they could not be destroyed by fire. I simply said that we don't know what the composition of that fire is and could not determine its limits.
Secondly, the picture given here is not that the sea destroyed the souls; rather it is the contents of the vial: the wrath of God.

You implied earlier that souls could be destroyed in hell when you listed the verse in Matthew 10. Then you implied that the sea would destroy souls. Now you're saying that the contents of vials can? So, now we have three ways souls can be destroyed?! This is getting more confusing by the postings.

I guess you haven't taken any courses in Greek either. [Sigh]

As the Greek language points out, psuche has nothing to do with the physical. When your command of the language warrants recapitulaiton of its definitions, you will have much more credibility.

I don't have to take any courses in Greek, especially when the context and content of the verses and chapter clearly depict what the word "soul" should mean. In none of your verses did you prove that it was referring to an immortal soul. You merely implied it, with nothing concrete to support such a theory.

I agree with part of what you say: you don't have any holy spirit. Here are some reminders.

There is still time and I have great hope for you. As smart as you are and as much as you are willing to contribute, you are going to be very effective man once you're converted.

My point in saying that I don't have any holy spirit is to prove that I don't need it, especially when I can simply read, comprehend the bible and appropriately interpret verses much better than the average person who claims to have it.

NOTE: Again, I'll ask....where is the term "immortal soul" mentioned in the whole Bible?
 
RB, it seems the more you post, the more it shows you don't understand the fictitious book called the bible. When did the apostles receive the holy spirit? At the day of Pentecost that's when. That was several days after Christ's supposed ascension.

No, the more you comment on Christianity, shows how much you truly hate Christ. I'm not the one calling God's holy word fictitious......you are. The majority of Christians who have read your posts know you hate Christ.....that's evident. I just pray you find Christ before it's too late.

Where does it read Peter and others received the holy spirit before becoming a Christian? You're making up stuff that's not in the bible. Why?

Before anyone receives the holy spirit, they're not capable of following supposed spiritual laws. If they can, what's the use of even receiving this supposed holy spirit? It's either one or the other.

Do you not know what the word "DISCIPLE" mean? Peter was a Christian before he sliced the man's ear off.


.....and yes, you're soft as Charmin tissue.
 
RB, as long as I've been posting here, you should know my stance on the subject. I think you do know, you're just trying to divert from you and your pastor being called out for hypocrisy.

If you want to know the answer to the question you asked, review my many posts on the subject.

I don't want to assume, however I want to be certain. Are you afraid and too soft to answer?
 
Back
Top