The Pagan Immortal Soul

Author: RaymondSheen

Posts

Total: 10
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 233
1
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
1
2
6
The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living.

When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.)

The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible.

Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB)

Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB)


Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): "Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret."

The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, V:ol. XIII, p. 467): "Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)."

The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): "In the New Testament, to 'save one's soul' (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some 'spiritual' part of man, as opposed to his 'body' (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical."

Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: "the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: "There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: "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 Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: "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."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: "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."

Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: "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."

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: "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."

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: "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."

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

Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods."

Also see

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

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,399
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Interesting read.


Another idea that I currently run with is residual energy/data.

Sort of ties in with simulation theory.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,353
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Some suggest this. Others don't.

Jewish thought has different views. Ask Rosend our resident Jew.

I understand that Augustine might have brought it into Christian thinking. Yet, it existed prior to that time in the church. 

Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.  Even the Pagans have access to common grace. In other words, pagans used to pray and sing. They used to make offerings to their superiors. They had priests.  

And families and governments.  I really don't see how whether the pagans introduced a concept into another religion reduces its effectiveness or even its validity. 

OF course, the Mormons and the JWs want to suggest that such introduction from pagan world somehow diluted Christianity. That's quite rich really given that both are considered outside of the church in today's world for many reasons. 


IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,264
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Another idea that I currently run with is residual energy/data.

Sort of ties in with simulation theory.
What do you mean? A kind of record of what happens in our reality?

Well, if we have to describe the universe in terms of systems we can say it works like a computer, and as any computer there should be a hard disk where everything is saved.

Our bodies work like this too, even at cell level (the DNA). The universe as a system should have a space where everything is recorded. This is not new, the ancient asian philosophies talk about that, they call it akashic records. I guess this is where psychics get their information (Edgar Cayce, for example).
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 233
1
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
1
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting. I'm currently translating the first chapter of Genesis. Verse 2 which normally reads something like: "The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters." I have translated as: "At that time the earth was a dark and barren desolation; and God's dynamic energy was concentrated on the surface of the primeval ocean." Dynamic energy. 

I think the only simulation reality, though, is the one we create. Deus ex machina. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,399
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
@RaymondSheen
Thoughts.


Over a life time, does the mass produce more than the sum of it's constituent parts?

Do we add anything to a Universe?


The Earth was formed and periods of darkness and light fell upon it's surface.

Deus ex machina, the click of the magicians fingers, the naive hypothesis, the quick fix.


So we've add several thousand more years of thought to the matrix.

And may continue to do so.

As may others perhaps.
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 233
1
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
There is a difference between Jewish (or any other) thought and tradition. Jews and Christians often disagree with me and that's fine, I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but Jewish tradition is as corrupted as any other and that naturally skewers their thinking and education. Their schooling and learning on the subject aren't tenable from the start. If anyone disagrees with the immortal soul as unscriptural all they have to do is misinterpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28. It's pretty straight forward. Then they have to deny the historical documentation of the pagan influence.

The church was apostate, as Paul and others warned in the Bible. That's only natural. Just look at the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish objection to me tends, oddly, to be more cerebral; linguistic, whereas Christian objection to me is more emotional.

Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.
No. Pagan means outside of. Baptism, tombstones, wedding rings, windchimes and many of the tenets of the Bible writers were first written about and practiced by the "pagans." The Bible is the source, not the church. I myself am outside the church because the church has become corrupt. Their teachings aren't in line with the Bible.

17 days later

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,353
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
There is a difference between Jewish (or any other) thought and tradition. Jews and Christians often disagree with me and that's fine, I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but Jewish tradition is as corrupted as any other and that naturally skewers their thinking and education. Their schooling and learning on the subject aren't tenable from the start. If anyone disagrees with the immortal soul as unscriptural all they have to do is misinterpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28. It's pretty straight forward. Then they have to deny the historical documentation of the pagan influence. 
Wow! People disagree with you. How fascinating. I wonder why? I think your thoughts are corrupted as anyone else. Jewish Thinking though at least initially and as understood in the OT, was high level. And that's because it's laws, philosophies, and morality and ethics were raised on God's Words. The 10 Commandments indeed were the very words of God, written with his own hand. 

The Immortal soul is a Greek concept. It's not Biblical. 

The church was apostate, as Paul and others warned in the Bible. That's only natural. Just look at the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish objection to me tends, oddly, to be more cerebral; linguistic, whereas Christian objection to me is more emotional.
Says you. Yet the Church is interestingly enough described in two metaphorical forms which make me disagree with you. Firstly, the church is the Bride of Christ. I am not going to have a go at the Bride of Christ. How incredibly naive of me to suggest that the Bride of Christ is immoral. Insulting. And I suggest dangerous.  I know that if someone insulted my wife, I wouldn't take it very well.

Secondly, the church is described as the Body of Christ. This too would mean is important. And a very dangerous thing to have a go at Christ himself. He is the head. And if the church has gone haywire - or as you put it - Apostate, then that is well, a really big insult at the head of the church. 

So by suggesting the church is apostate, you insult - the Bride of Christ and Christ himself. Not a very smart thing if you believe in God. 


Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.
No. Pagan means outside of. Baptism, tombstones, wedding rings, windchimes and many of the tenets of the Bible writers were first written about and practiced by the "pagans." The Bible is the source, not the church. I myself am outside the church because the church has become corrupt. Their teachings aren't in line with the Bible.
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though. I suspect your teachings are not in line with the Bible either. 
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 233
1
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The Immortal soul is a Greek concept. It's not Biblical. 
That's what I said. 

Says you.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Timothy 4:3

Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though.
"And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” Mark 1:9-10 The Greek word baptisma means to immerse, from the verb bapto meaning dip. The Septuagint, for example, uses the word at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,353
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though.
"And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” Mark 1:9-10 
Please articulate you think this phrase means submersion and for instance the exact same phrase in Acts 8:38-39 doesn't means submersion. The only way you can argue it means submersion is if you also argue that both Philip and the Eithopian both submerged each other. 


The Greek word baptisma means to immerse, from the verb bapto meaning dip. The Septuagint, for example, uses the word at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.
I know what the words means. But immerse doesn't necessarily mean submerge. There are two different words here. And there is ANOTHER Greek Word for Submerge.  In fact in the passage you referred to above - Mark 1:8 uses the words baptism in two different ways. With water and with the Spirit.  Are there two different modes being referred to here. After all, people are not baptised into the Holy Spirit. Rather the Spirt as it says in verses 9 and 10 shows that the Spirit came upon Jesus. Not Jesus went into the Spirit. Similarly at Pentecost, the Spirit rested on them - as tongues of fire. That is a mode - that Most Christians use. A pouring out - a sprinkling indeed. We are baptised with water. Not into water.