THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SOUL


That's another inheritance from Egyptian myth and Greek Mythology. I have been asked about the soul. Probably by questioners tired of being exploited by the crooks of this world who have been for thousands of years using this one more item to keep the naive ones under the religious chain which, psychologically, keeps the channel open for Mammon.

In fact, what indeed is the soul? The soul is not something we have, but something we are for a limited time. The soul is a human condition; the condition of being man alive. As soon as we are dead, the soul is non-existent. In Israel, whenever there is a massive accident or terrorist attack, the first question in the air is, "How many nephashote" were there at the area? That's what soul is called in Hebrew; "nephesh." For dead casualties comes the second question. "How many guphote, God forbid?" That's what the dead body is in Hebrew, guphah. Therefore, guphote, the dead ones; or nephashote, the living ones.

Now, before you think or say, "Behold, Ben is back with another of his wild interpretations of the Scriptures, let me invite you to Genesis 2:7. "When the Almighty formed man from the dust of the ground, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." To become means to be. That's what man is, "a living soul". At the time of death, as the body goes back to the dust, according to Ecclesiastes 12:7, the breath of life returns to God Who gave it," which the Q'ohelet embelishes it with the term "spirit."

The expression, "returns to God Who gave it," means only that something is gone; it is over; it is just no more. It means that at death, when the breath of life is separated from the body, the soul ceases to exist. We are allowed to name the breath of life spirit, which only makes of the soul a temporary emanation. Then, under the term spirit we could name almost any kind of emanation.

So, no more fear of souls, or the thought that soul survives the body, or is collected somewhere to be loaned, so to speak, to a body which is being born, or that it will enjoy or suffer any kind of afterlife. We are all living souls and, once dead, the soul is gone as if it did not exist, or ever had any life of its own.

Ben

Ben,
So are you a proponent of the Hebrew faith? Do you follow its rules, and make it a part of your life (temporal as it is, in your opinion)?

If so, to what tribe do you trace your lineage?

I am from the Tribe of Judah, as about 75% of the Jews are.
But today, it does not matter, since the tribal system has been abolished with the New Covenant established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one unique People,
according to Ezekiel 37:22.

The Jewish People today is formed by the main stem of Judah, a few thousands from the Israelites who escaped to join Judah in the South during the moratorium 100 years between the permanent fall of Israel to Assyria, and the temporal one of Judah to Babylon, plus the Gentiles who have converted to Judaism, according to Halachah. (Isa. 48:1; 56:1-8)
Ben

Ben007Masada,

So, I understand that there are remnants of the ten northern tribes present in the Judah disaspora, which has been involved with the re-establishment of the current nation of Israel (occupying some of the original homeland). Is this correct?

Ben007Masada wrote: "But today, it does not matter, since the tribal system has been abolished with the New Covenant established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one unique People, according to Ezekiel 37:22"

And, how did this New Covenant displace the "Old" Covenant? As I recall, when Abram was given the original Covenant by God, He used the method popular with human beings of the time. A number of animals were ceremonially killed and splayed on the ground. The two parties to the covenant then passed through the bloody ground. The symbology of the animals deaths was binding upon both parties to the covenant. If EITHER party broke the covenant, then the instigator was to expect to be killed in a manner similar to the animals.

If the Hebrew people did not break the Covenant initiated with Abram (later Abraham), then it means God chose to do so. And, if He is indeed a God of Truth, then He would honor the Covenant dissolution. How would He then do this?

God is infinite, in ability and in longevity. How, then, would you reason that He did this? [Since He must sacrifice, if He is to remain True.]

Not quite correct. You refer to "remnants" of the Ten Northern Tribes as if they have joined Judah now to re-establish the current nation of Israel. The remnants of the Ten Tribes that joined Judah, they did it before Judah went for 70 years of exile in Babylon. Seventy years was enough of a period to make of them Jews as all the Jews are today. Anyway, we are all back to re-establish the Land of our forefathers. We never really abandoned the Land of Israel. We were forced to, because of our sins. Therefore, at the end of exile, we are back to what has always been ours for over 4000 years.
Ben

The New Covenant made with the House of Israel and the House
of Judah as one People took place by means of Ezra/Nehemiah,
soon after they returned from Babylon. It did not replace the Sinaitic Covenant, if this is what you mean by "old." Only a few items were replaced, like the Tribal system, (Ezek. 37:22) the prophetic system, (Dan. 9:24), the "Who is
a Jew" identity, which used to be through the father and became through the mother, and a few others.

Then, covenants were not made by God with man, but rather by men with God. The sacrifice of animals were never a Divine requirement but prophetic symbols adopted by the People of Israel. Therefore, it did not mean that men should
be bloodly sacrifices if they broke the Covenant. To breakers of the Covenant who wanted to set things right with
God, the only requirement was to repent and obey, according to Isaiah 1:18,19.
Ben

Ben007Masada wrote; "Then, covenants were not made by God with man, but rather by men with God."

You'd better check out Genesis 15, if you think covenants are initiated by men - God's speaking, beginning in verse 9.

[also referred to "www" jewishencyclopedia "com" slash articles slash 4714-covenant, Critical View(near bottom)]

As I can see, you belong in the literal interpretation club. To literally interpret the Scriptures or any literary work of Poetry, is to bring Adonai down to the level of the Greek gods of Mythology. If you read the Iliad of Homer, you will see what I am talking about. To make covenants with God is like the saying that we have been chosen by God to be His chosen People. No, we have chosen God. Since we have taken our choice of God seriously, we have become known as God's chosen People. Do you, by any chance, know what anthropomorphism is, that's exactly what you are trying to do by attributing Genesis 15 to God and not to Moses.
Ben

Ben,

There is a lot of confusion in my mind about where you stand, in regards to the authenticity of the fundamental Jewish tenets and how they affect you personally.

I see that you chose not to answer my question of 5/19/12 -
Yoda55 wrote: “So are you a proponent of the Hebrew faith? Do you adhere to its rules, and make it a part of your life (temporal as it is, in your opinion)?”

Why the avoidance?... Are you reluctant to admit/commit to it?... If so, why?... You write commentary on the Torah. Are you viewing it as a curiosity of literature, or a guide for living as a practicing Jew?

If you view it as the latter, then what is the official Jewish opinion about the inspiration source for Moses’ recording of those five books?

Well, let me clear up your confusion about where I stand. Reason is the word. I stand on reason as interpretation of the Scriptures is concerned. To interpret the Scriptures literally, exactly as it is written, is to stand on faith, and faith leads to no knowledge. Hosea says that people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) And to stand on faith only, the end is death, as it happened to the faithfuls of Jim Jones.

The Jewish tenets affect my personal life in terms of being rather a way of life than specifically a religion. Yes, I am
a proponent of the Hebrew faith but from the rational point of view. And I do adhere to its rules where I understand the rationality of them. I use the Torah as a guide but as a rational Jew.

Regarding your question about Moses' source of inspiration, I have no objection. He was indeed Divinely inspired as a Messianic leader to take the Messiah from Egypt and back to the Promised Land. But here is the blow that broke the camel's back: Moses did not write those five books. Perhaps some fragments directly connected with the Law. IMHO, and that of the great Philosopher Baruch de Spinoza, most of those books and the historical ones were written and organized by Ezra. So much so that Moses, throughout the Torah is referred to in the third person and not as if he was writing about himself.

Ben

Ben007Masada wrote: "Hosea says that people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)"

That's an interesting take on the passages in Hosea, a prophet who was commenting on the obedience of the ten tribes in the north (or should I say *disobedience*). The ten tribes were instructed to remove all influences of the pagan inhabitants of the land when the Hebrews took possession of it. The ten tribes ignored the command, preferring to second-guess God, and allowed idols to remain. That led to compromises in their *faith*, leading them to be *unfaithful* to God (first commandment applies here) by incorporating local pagan gods into their worship.

It's true that Isaiah (1:18) spoke to "let us reason together". But, *faith* is a key element of being Hebrew. Abram wouldn't have left Ur if he didn't have *faith* in what God told him. It was a long trek from Ur to Canaan to do it on a whim...

Again, when God requested Abraham to take Isaac and make sacrifice (without taking a suitable animal to accomplish this), Abraham was leading with his *faith*, not his reason. His reason would have told him that not taking a sacrificial animal could only lead to one alternative - his son Isaac would be the sacrifice.

If God's gift of a son (Isaac) to carry on the family was to be sacrificed (dead), and there is no resurrection or soul which lives beyond the mortal human body, then how would God satisfy the promises He made of making Abraham the father of countless descendents? There wouldn't have been a restoration of Isaac. Since God is only Truth, then He cannot mislead or lie. Also note that, Ishmael was not the son to whom God referred as Abraham's ONLY son. So, the descendents of Ishmael aren't the promise fulfillment. At Abraham's age, another son born of Sarah wasn't even hinted at.

Sacrificing Isaac would make him cease to exist - one time only, as you put it.

If Abraham knew that God was intending a substitute for Isaac, then Abraham's obedience would not have meant much - because of no actual threat to Isaac's life, it would have placed Abraham in a position where God could not validate a test of Abraham's *faith*... that doesn't sound like God's behavior pattern ...just a thought...

Ben007Masada wrote: "IMHO, and that of the great Philosopher Baruch de Spinoza, most of those books and the historical ones were written and organized by Ezra. So much so that Moses, throughout the Torah is referred to in the third person and not as if he was writing about himself."

If you read the Gospel book of John (following Luke in the text), John often referred to a "disciple who Jesus loved". In the situations John wrote about, where this individual appears, it is himself to whom he refers. It is a literary technique which prevents the author from using "I" and "me" throughout text where the emphasis is distracted by using these two pronouns. I think that Moses probably didn't pen the books of the Torah himself, either. His tendency to stutter was a sore point with him, and although he was literate (being raised a son of Pharoah), it was more likely that someone was inspired to capture his actions and words so that word-of-mouth perpetuation would not lose any details.

Jesus said, International Standard Version (©2012)
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

Paul said, King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord

The key element of being Hebrew or Jewish for that matter is knowledge of the Lord which is the fear of God. (Prov. 1:7) What Abraham had when he left Ur was trust which is quite different from faith. If the faithful is disappointed he is to blame because of his faulty faith. If the one who trusts is disappointed, the one whom he trusted is the one to be blamed for. Abraham trusted in God and did as he was bid.

The Lord did request of Abraham to take Isaac, his only son
but it was in a dream/vision. Literally, the Lord would never request of Abraham to do what was against the Law or to behave as a pagan Canaanite. That metaphorical sacrifice of Isaac was only to symbolize the role of Israel in the Counsel of God. Hence the ram provided to replace Isaac who would be the symbol of the firstborn to be sacrificed for the salvation of Mankind.

Ben

The disciple whom Jesus loved, for three reasons, could have
never been John. IMHO, she was Mary Magdalene who quite often served as a companion of Jesus during his missionary trips throughout Israel.

But for the reasons, the first is that according to Mark 14:50 when Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples deserted him and fled, perhaps afraid that the romans would come for them too.

The second reason is that according to a Roman policy, none of the disciples of a crucified was allowed to be seen any closer to the site of the crucifixion.

And the third reason is that according to Jewish family tradition, a Jew would never entrust a female close relative, especially his own mother to a male disciple to take care of each other.

Mary Magdalene was right there before the cross hand-in-hand with Jesus' mother and Jesus said to her, "Woman, behold thy son!" IOW, see the condition I have come to. Behold thy daughter (in law) and to Mary, behold thy mother (in law). Take care of each other.

The adulteration of this text to replace Mary with John was meant to misguide the future readers into believing that Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene.

IMHO this was not only an irresponsible interpolation but also a disservice to Jesus himself who would be supected of being a homosexual man, considering that he had spent three and a half years hanging around with twelve young men and calling one of them his beloved one.

Ben

The statement that the Lord is God of the living and not of the dead only confirms the point that once dead no one will ever praise the Lord or even remember Him. (Psa. 6:6; 30:9)

The only chance we have to be present with the Lord is during our lifetime. The Pauline idea to be present with the Lord after death is Hellenistic and strange from Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus.

Ben

Where do you come up with such nonsense when it comes to understanding the bible?/?
Just tell us what you are! Are you an agnostic or are you a Gnostic? Maybe you are just a run of mill heretic! Pick one. Tell us how you manage to find such a corruption in the texts> what background do you have? What training do you espouse? What credentials do you hold to teach us your heresy? Your faith is empty! You are still in your sins! > 1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is ...if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) And if The Messiah is not alive, your faith is empty ...

bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-51.htm
Not all of us will die, but all of us will be changed—. King James Bible ( Cambridge Ed.) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be ..

Mine is no nonsense. I belong with the People who wrote the Bible. I hope you are not implying to know a book better than its author.

And of the options you have presented above to guess what I am, you have missed them all. I am Jewish; of the same Faith of Jesus which was Judaism. I hope you agree with me that Jesus was a Jew.

What I teach is not heresy. Heresy was what Paul taught by saying that a Jew could be the Messiah, son of God and that he had resurrected. This yes, sounds Greek heresy.

I don't live by faith but by the knowledge of God's Word. Faith is too misleading as knowledge becomes unnecessary where faith is the way of life.

Right, Jesus was not raised because he was a Jewish man, and bodily resurrection is not an item in the Jewish agenda.

The Messiah is alive alright. Since Jesus died, he could not have been the Messiah. Besides, the Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. Therefore, the Messiah cannot die but is expected to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)

We all will die. That's a natural process which is part of life itself. Whoever is born is supposed to die. But the Messiah, being collective in the People of Israel won't die. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, Messiah means the Anointed of the Lord. It says in there that "The Lord comes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed." That's Israel, the Jewish People.

Ben

Silverglass,

I think you're chasing a phantom, here...

If Ben007Masada is truly Jewish, then he's missed the necessary prophesies in Isaiah (56 et al) and Daniel to link him to the texts you quote. That means he's no closer than Jesus' contemporaries to understanding. Only Jesus' return (as King and Messiah) will meet his/their expectations. But, first, they'll be misled by the anti-christ down a difficult road - with which they've become ever so familiar.

He has mentioned elsewhere on this forum that he sees the Pentetuch is not just a literally viewed text. Interpretation is required to catch meanings hidden in symbology (of icons and numbers). With that there is some common ground.

If he isn't Jewish, then again he's missing the necessary texts to be convinced.

And, if he's a secular Jew, as I suspect, then he's lost the real reason for the Abrahamic tradition being established. And, he is going to be woefully surprised when Jesus returns.

Yoda, if Jesus ever return, the Tanach will be proved wrong.
Read Job 7:9; 10:21; 14:12; 2 Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12; Prov. 2:19; etc. The whole Tanach teaches that the literal dead once dead will never be alive again.

Jesus cannot return as king or Messiah because he was never king and nevert acclaimed himself to be the Messiah. It is according to the gospel of Paul that he was the Messiah. (2 Tim. 2:8)

The Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and eventually dies. The Messiah is a suffering servant and not a dead servant. Jesus died. The Messiah is the collective in the People of Israel. (Hab. 3:13) The Messiah is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)


The main idea of Isaiah 56, especially 1-8 is about the conversion of Gentiles who wish to join the People of the Covenant.

The real reason for the Abrahamic Covenant to be established
with Isaac was to establish the everlasting Covenant between
God and His People, the Jewish People whose token was everlasting possession of the Land of Israel. (Gen. 17:19,21)

Ben

Yea, I had an inking that he was a Jew. I guess I made an error in interpreting his perception of the Isaiah text as you say. I should have been more sympathetic toward his understanding of the messiah even if I believe he is not looking at Jesus as the one who fulfilled this passage. As most conservative scholars would agree to when looking at the historical perspective of the Old Testament. It moves from law towards grace and if one looks at the texts carefully it is apparent that the law was going to become of no effect in the end. The plan God had from the beginning was to bring Grace and truth through the messiah and end the law forever. I know by faith that Jesus did all he could to explain this concept to his contemporaries but they refused the spirit as they always did in the killing of the prophets and the finally the son but this was not really a surprise to God as the Hebrews always were a resistant group. They were chosen to bring the gospel to the world but after the killing of the Messiah God had had it with the Jews and in effect the Church has taken the place of bringing the Gospel to the world. God sent the armies of Rome against the Jews in 70 ad and destroyed their temple as a feature of his anger for their rejecting Christ. They can individually be brought back into this new covenant if they participate by faith and be regrafted into the vine. But there is no other covenant beyond what is delivered to us by the cross. No! No reopening of the old ways. No rebuilding of the temple. All of that is done away with. Christ is our new temple!

As I told you in the previous post, Jesus did not fulfill the passage with regards to the Messiah because the Messiah is not supposed to be an individual but the People.

Even a Messianic leader, Jesus did not qualify because a Messianic leader is the one who leads the Messiah back to the Land as Moses did from Egypt to Canaan, as Cyrus did by proclaiming the end of the Babylonian exile and financing the rebuilding of the Temple, as Herzl did by inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.

When Jesus was born, the Messiah was in the Land of Israel. During his lifetime the situation of the Messiah only got worse and at his death, the Messiah was exiled to the four corners of the earth for another exile of almost 2000 years. How could have Jesus been the Messiah when even as a Messianic leader he did not classify?

The Law is eternal. It was given as a result of God's grace and without it, it is impossible for man to live in society. Here is an example from daily life: If you commit a crime against the law and claim to have been saved by grace, the Judge will send you to jail for not obying the Law. If you obey, you don't even have to show up in Court because you have nothing to fear.

The Jews did not kill the prophets or Jesus. The prophets were killed by the local kings especially Jezebel the Gentile wife of king Ahab; and Jesus was killed by Pilate because Jesus' own disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. (Luke 19:37,38) Interesting to notice that the Pharisees tried to help Jesus not to be arrest by asking him to rebuke his disciple to stop their non-sense because Jesus could end up on the cross, but Jesus could not do it. (Luke 19:37-40) That's why Pilate's verdict upon Jesus was nailed on the top of his cross, that is INRI. Therefore, the Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

Ben

I suppose we could argue all day long about what I believe and how important Faith is in revealing the glory of God to those who are blind. But I will let the writing of Paul clarify my thoughts on this. Tell me what you think of this passage. 2 Corinthings 3: 7-18

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels. 11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remains is glorious. 12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same veil not taken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. 15But even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is on their heart. 16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. 17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the LORD.

To argue all the day long is all that learning is about. And
faith is not so important as knowledge. This yes, is the best way to approach God. (Prov. 1:7) As faith dispenses with knowledge, faith rather distances one of God.

Regarding Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18, if you are not requesting an exegesis of verse by verse, the whole text is only a Pauline verbal juggling to promote his policy of Replacement Theology. The whole thing meaning nothing else but to get freedom from Moses or the Law and trust the replacement in Jesus. (Heb. 7:12,22) That Jesus was the fulfillment of all those Mosaic shadows. I bet Paul would have hated the parable of the Richman and Lazarus, whose purpose was to teach that "Moses" aka the Law was the only chance for one to escape Hell. (Luke 16:29-31)Alas that he had already died before the gospel of Luke was out.

John 9:20-30
20 His parents answered them and said , We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: 21 But by what means he now seeth , we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23 Therefore said his parents , He is of age; ask him. 24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 25 He answered and said , Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know , that, whereas I was blind, now I see . 26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear : wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 28 Then they reviled him, and said , Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is . 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is , and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

"Because he feared the Jews." This proves that the writer of this text was not Jewish. It could not have been John the Apostle of Jesus. From this point alone the writer has no credibility for a Jew to believe in him.

"We know that this man is a sinner." This is in terms of the truth that every man sins and there is none who does not. Nothing personal. BTW, Jesus broke the Golden Rule more than several times which proves that Jesus was also a sinner.

"What did he do to open your eyes?" Probably they did not believe in miracles. Today hundreds of Israeli Doctors open the eyes of thousands of native Africans who are blind as a result of cataract; and all as a free gift. So, what's the big deal about having one's eyes open by another?

Ben

When did Jesus break the golden rule?

Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not like they did unto you." This rule covers all the commandments on
the second part of the Catalogue.

1) That's about the moneychangers in the front area of the Temple doing their work by permission of the High Priest to make it easier to Jews from abroad to change their foreign money for the Temple shekel in order to buy an animal to sacrifice as to use the foreign coin would render the sacrifice unkosher. Jesus made himself a scourge of cords and drove them all out, as well as the sheep and the oxen and poured out the changer's money and overthrew their tables. In other words, he caused physical and financial damages to those who had permission to do their work in the front area of the Temple. Do you think Jesus would have liked to see his business messed up by an outsider? I don't think so. Therefore, he broke the Golden Rule. (John 2:15)

2) Now, take a look at Matthew 15:21-26. Jesus was in Sidon
a city of Tyre when a woman whose daughter was seriously sick came to him to ask to cure her daughter. Jesus answered
and said that it was not fair to take from the bread of the children and throw it unto the dogs. A hostile answer was in order but since the woman was desperate for help, she resigned herself to the condition of dogs and hoped at least
to enjoy the crumbs from the table of the children. Realizing that he could not get rid of her Jesus cured her daughter. Do you think Jesus would have liked to be treated as a dog? I don't think so. Therefore, he broke the Golden Rule.

3) I little further in Matthew 23:13-33 we have the famous woes or curses Jesus charged the Pharisees with:Hypocrites! Blind guides! Fools! Whited sepulchres!Killers of prophets!
Serpents! etc. I don't believe he did that because IMHO, he was of the line of the Pharisees; but since the gospel charges him with so insulting the Pharisees, he broke the Golden Rule because I am sure he would not have liked to be addressed with those nasty adjectives.

I believe, for the time being, the examples above are enough to prove that Jesus was not the paragon of perfection Christians claim he was.

Ben

So I guess you would have to make the same claim about God being a sinner, right! Thou shalt not kill was His own commandment.

1 Samuel 15


God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago.
To kill or not to kill
Is God merciful?

15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there!
Silvergalss wrote: "It moves from law towards grace and if one looks at the texts carefully it is apparent that the law was going to become of no effect in the end."

Don't be too hasty to conclude that the Law is of no further consequence... The Law is what God expects of us. He knows that we're unable to follow the Law without error, in our finite temporal state. Therefore, he provided Jesus to pay the price of what every sinful human being deserved, death (wages of sin = death). The act of Jesus (as the sinless sacrifice) satisfies God's requirement for blood in payment of sin. But, that doesn't remove the Law as His expectation. What this life is meant to teach us is the necessity for discipline in our thoughts, words, and deeds... Why?... Because if we fail to learn the requirement for discipline, then what happens to a spirit who sins (when we have no mortal life and body to shed)?... Isn't the answer to that found in what Satan and his companion fallen angels are experiencing? Death for them would be non-existence, correct?

[I’m using the New King James Bible, found on webpage biblegateway(dot)com]:

Ben007Masada wrote: “Yoda, if Jesus ever return(ed), the Tanach will be proved wrong. Read Job 7:9; 10:21; 14:12; 2 Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12; Prov. 2:19; etc. The whole Tanach teaches that the literal dead once dead will never be alive again.”

What about Psalm 49:15? “But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. Selah" (i.e. ‘pause, and consider’). If there is “nothing” after the human being dies, then what is being referred to here? It sounds to me like God will overcome the death experienced, and that something ("me", the soul) survives the death. According to scripture, this soul which survives death will be received by God. Now, I don’t think God is going to receive something if there is nothing to be received. Do you?

How about the following? “Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it”, Eccl 12:7.

As you’re well aware, Solomon wrote three important texts during his reign. He started with “Song of Solomon”, in the early stages as he matured. He followed with “Proverbs”, displaying the wisdom with which God blessed him (at his own request). He ended with Ecclesiastes, as he reviewed the mistakes he made in his life and admonished those reading it about what’s best to consider.

Now, if we are to believe the Bible, then everything in it must be true and consistent (Boolean AND reasoning). The OT is filled with events, both successes and failures, which document the Hebrew nation’s search to adhere to God’s will. Solomon was the wisest man in God’s creation permitted to walk the face of this earth (2 Chron 1:11; 9:22-23). This being the case, he must have better understood what man’s relationship with God entails – him being a devout Jew and the designated Hebrew leader, who is culpable (held responsible) for the direction in which he leads them. The 'dust' represents the body, and the 'spirit' (soul) is what God places in the body to uniquely animate it. If the Gen 2:7 simply was a breath of air, one might be able to conclude that nothing substantial transferred. But, the animation of a thinking human being takes a bit more.

We have maintained people on life support, animating the body with breaths of air. However, the person is not responsive – clinically dead. No, this takes something more, from the divine to the creation – a soul. According to Solomon, the soul survives the body and is meant to return to God.

What do you make of the following webpage?:
www(dot)jewfaq(dot)org(slash)defs(slash)afterlife(dot)htm

Whoa, whoa, whoa there! Silvergalss wrote: "It moves from law towards grace and if one looks at the texts carefully it is apparent that the law was going to become of no effect in the end." Don't be too hasty to conclude that the Law is of no further consequence... The Law is what God expects of us. He knows that we're unable to follow the Law without error. Therefore, he provided Jesus to pay the price of what every imperfect human being deserved, death. That act of Jesus (as the sinless sacrifice) satisfies God's requirement for blood in payment of sin. But, that doesn't remove the Law as His expectation. What this life is meant to teach us is the necessity for discipline in our thoughts, words, and deeds... Why?... Because if we fail to learn the requirement for discipline (when we have no mortal life and body to shed), then what happens to a spirit who sins?... Isn't the answer to that found in what Satan and his companion fallen angels are experiencing? Death for them is non-existence, isn't it?





Pretty weighly thoughts.

You say, “What this life is meant to teach us is the necessity for discipline in our thoughts, words, and deeds... Why?... Because if we fail to learn the requirement for discipline (when we have no mortal life and body to shed), then what happens to a spirit who sins?..
Your sound like a Gnostic teacher.
However, The NT texts give a clearer meaning to your delemma. We don’t have to do anything to aquire a higher counsciensness or some other false doctrine of those fallen angels. . Yes their end is sealed as you say. But the implications of the NT documents(texts) determines one thing . That is> the just shall live by faith. Hebrews 10:38 This finds many allusions thoughout the old testament.. Read the last chapter of the book of Hebrews which refers to these historical people.
Now non existence is evidentally post modern and part and parcel of the new age mumbo jumbo.
As far I can read in the Old Testament no Hebrew who live by faith ever belived such a such a thing.
That’w where it ends with the doctrine of the new testament apostles.
Be assured “ if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away;….all things become new. For by Grace are we saved by grace and that not of ourselves , not of works lest any man should boast. You boast of yourself, and I am not impressed.

As I can see, you are of the literal interpretation club. God is not like a man to kill another. One is killed or die as a result of the law of cause and effect. We are responsible for our own transgressions.

That time in Canaan was the time of Migrations. The Israelites were not the only group in search of a place to settle themselves and quit the nomadic way of life. Many others were doing the same and the method was to destroy all the former inhabitants to prevent an insurrection against the conquerers.

Then, of course, they would attribute their achievements to their own gods. Israel was no exception. But God Himself neither did any of the killing nor literally ordered any.

Ben

Psalm 49:15 and many others are about David experiencing moments of danger and he would pray for protection not to die. That's when he would be protected from ending up in the grave.

The case in Ecclesiates 12:7 of the spirit returning to God,
spirit is an euphemism for the breath of life which was breathed into man's nostrils when the Lord formed him from the dust of the earth. (Gen. 2:7)

Every thing in the Bible is true but we must be able to understand metaphorical language to grasp the truth of the message.

The soul does not survive the body because the soul is man himself who is the composition of body and breath of life. If you read Genesis 2:7, when the Lord breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, he BECAME a living soul. To become is to be and not to have. Therefore, we don't have souls; we ARE souls. When one dies the soul is gone. It does not survive the body.

Ben

You know Ben you can't have it both ways. You can't call Jesus a sinner and not call god a sinner! You translate things literally when you want to suit you agenda . As far as I am concerned I no longer am interested in going on with your agenda. Good luck with whatever your doing.

Listen my friend and I'll tell you that I am not having both
ways or expressing an opinion just because it suits my agenda. Tell me, who was Jesus, a Jew or a Christian? A Jew,
right? Right. What was his Faith? Judaism, right? Right. It means that he was more akin to me than to you. As a Jew he could not be God because there is no such a thing in Judaism which was his Faith. Jesus was a man and evidences in the gospels point to the fact that he was like any other man a sinner. We cannot say the same of God because God is not like a man to sin. And by running away from this arena you have only showed that you don't have what it takes to debate with a Jew even in your own NT. Isn't that really embarrassing?

Ben

First of all your not my friend. I know my friends. I do not know you from Adam. Now I am not going to waste my time on trying to convince you of anything. However, I would say I know Christ and apparently you don't. Your disown his rightful place in the Godhead and so you are an emeny of God Himself according to the NT. As such you are far away from the truth and any claim outside of being a Jew. Which means nothing. Without faith it is impossible to please God. But you are not about pleasing anybody but your claims to so called knowledge and as I said before I belive you are following a Gnostic influence.
I do not have time for your posts. Your blood is on your own hands.

Sorry but I am not the one who has disappointed you but yourself. If you had studied your Bible more carefully you would not have to depend on faith to stand before knowledge.
Hosea was right when he said that people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)

I think you wish you knew about Jesus at least half as much as I do. Now, before I let you go, I would like to know what
the Truth is at least just to define here who of the two of us is far away from the Truth.

Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. (John 17:17) That's the Word of God which was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. (Psa.147:19,20) If the Word of God was given to the Jews and not to Christians and if what you teach you have not learned from the Jews, it is only obvious that you don't have the Truth. Therefore it is proved that you are the one far away from the Truth. You have rejected the chance to have it. So, your blood be upon your head. (Eze.33:9)

Ben

Ben007Masada wrote: "Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. (John 17:17)"

Since Truth is only possible if all constituent parts are True, then since God is thought/word/deed all wrapped in one package "God is Truth". He says what He thinks and does what He says - consistent and True.

It is possible for man, being that he is finite and not omniscient as is God, that the Truth man has uncovered is not the total Truth (only a portion thereof). All that he has uncovered as True, in aggregate, is still True when viewed from perspective of all man's understanding. But, conclusions based upon only partial knowledge can be as wrong if he had it wrong from the beginning. Viewing Truth from God's perspective, man can be all wrong even though he understands truth for everything he knows.

Knowledge, though, is not equivalent with wisdom. Knowledge is a matter of collecting facts - to know. Understanding comes from wisdom, which is a judgment of the collected facts and what their collective weight portends.

Seek knowledge, yes. But, don't seek it at the expense of understanding.

Ben007Masada wrote: "The case in Ecclesiates 12:7 of the spirit returning to God, spirit is an euphemism for the breath of life which was breathed into man's nostrils when the Lord formed him from the dust of the earth. (Gen. 2:7)"

I know that ancient Greek has individual, unique terms for nuances of related ideas. It makes for a large vocabulary, but it also makes for clearer meaning conveyance.

Tell me, in the Hebrew of Gen 2:7 and Eccl 12:7, are the terms used synonyms (ie. interchangable labels for the exact same concept)? Or, are they differing terms with differing nuances?

Knowledge is the only way understanding can be achieved. Therefore, we must seek knowledge if we are to understand the Truth. (Prov. 1:7)

Ben

Yes Yoda, the very same term "Neshama" used in Genesis 2:7 is the one used in Ecclesiastes 12:7 as well as in Psalm 31:5 which goes thus: "into thy hands I commit my "Neshama" which carries the same meaning for breath of life or spirit.

Ben

Check out the translations on the following website:
Genesis 2:7 (found at www.scripture4all.org(slash)OnlineInterlinear(slash)OTpdf(slash)gen2.pdf ), and Ecclesiastes 12:7 (found at www.scripture4all.org(slash)OnlineInterlinear(slash)OTpdf(slash)qoh12.pdf ).

These are not the same words - all one has to do is examine the Hebrew quoted and translated.

Thoughts?

There is the fleshly soul and which we consider it to be our physical body; and then there is the spiritual soul and which the physical soul have to receive it. Once the physical soul conceive the spiritual soul, the spiritual soul must be nourished by the word of God in order for it to mature. The physical soul feeds off the fleshly things of this world; but the spiritual soul feed off of spiritual food and which it is the word of God. Basically which I'm trying to say is that we must receive the spirit in order for us to be born of the spirit. There is a lot of people that are spiritual soul-less; They bahave as zombies. They only move by instinct. They only pleases their spouses by physical pleasures as the same as animals. The only way for them to understand what is a spiritual soul, they must have the spiritual soul in them. So the ones without a spiritual soul are empty, and which means that another entity can enter into them and take control of there physical soul.