Location of the soul

[biblestudent78]

I know mankind has been around far more that 3-4000 years, but that is the approximate age for the Hebrew people if they are the descendants of Abraham.

And referencing Isaiah, I fully agree with yoiur assessment. I also trust that you know that part of Isaiah was borrowed from propaganda.

Another point we may be missing. Father Abraham had how many sons??? How about 14 we know of because women never counted in the Hebrew Bible so we have no idea of how many children Abraham had. Can you name them? All were sired after Abraham was over 100 yrs old.

 

[rewriter]

Another point we may be missing. Father Abraham had how many sons??? How about 14 we know of because women never counted in the Hebrew Bible so we have no idea of how many children Abraham had. Can you name them? All were sired after Abraham was over 100 yrs old.

The OT is not my strongest point, but with a little thought I could likely name most of them. My concentration in grad school, aka seminary, was the NT. My subsequent studies have also concentrated there as well as looking for realistic probabilities where there is supporting evidence as opposed to logical ones where it merely is not automatically contradictory (think "God did it" for an acceptable example, or "the entire universe was created just 5 minutes ago, including all the necessary appearances of great age, including our memories", another that cannot be disproven but is much less popular among Christians). This has been a huge task and taken over 40 years to find a key that allows me to make consistent sense of many problematic passages in the NT, and the respect of many biblical scholars, conservatives, liberals and MoR's.

 

[biblestudent78]

The OT is not my strongest point, but with a little thought I could likely name most of them. My concentration in grad school, aka seminary, was the NT. My subsequent studies have also concentrated there as well as looking for realistic probabilities where there is supporting evidence as opposed to logical ones where it merely is not automatically contradictory (think "God did it" for an acceptable example, or "the entire universe was created just 5 minutes ago, including all the necessary appearances of great age, including our memories", another that cannot be disproven but is much less popular among Christians). This has been a huge task and taken over 40 years to find a key that allows me to make consistent sense of many problematic passages in the NT, and the respect of many biblical scholars, conservatives, liberals and MoR's.

rewriter.. I have been a general bible student for about 25 yrs and an intense student for the past 45yrs. What I have come to realize is that most literate bible students (of all ages) intuitively want to find, invent or repeat an organizing framework that captures a fairly vertical line of reasoning and requires ignoring anything that does not "fit." Thus the thousands of competing Christianities.

Intentionally or unintentionally we constrain the data contained in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in our attempt to "harmonize" it we actually wind up "homogenizing" it. Over time, this bending, blending and homogenizing brings what we take as coherence but is actually a unique distortion we feel justified in making. The single point of validation we have our framework of choice is that it can be defended. This is usually done with a blizzard of proof texts devoid of their context that can be reassembled to validate our framework. The intent of the writer and the perception by those originally experiencing the Gospel are irrelevant. Most frameworks presuppose that every word of the Bible was written specifically to them and how we experience the word is exactly how the writers wanted us to experience the word. The biblical writers were writing to us, not people we don't know or understand.

All who live and die by their faith in "their" framework fails to, or are unwilling to recognize that nothing about our cherished framework comes from us. It comes down the long broken road of Christian history. Many of the key framework platforms started in the minds of men and women in the first through the 20th century. Our personal frameworks for understanding the bible are not ours, but are the inheritance of a 2,000 history of people with both high and low motives. Almost every plank of our most cherished biblical framework did not exist until someone along the line of transmission "discovered it" or "invented it" or "it was revealed to them."

Thus, the challenge for each generation of bible students is to clearly see who crafted our frameworks, when and why. Perhaps the most we can hope for is that people can approach each writer, each letter written as a singular, unique and valuable insight into the work of God through Christ to birth a new people with new hearts but a common commitment to living in harmony with Jesus. Not just to the words of Jesus, but to the life of Jesus.

Frameworks that restrict us to being less than fully human should be rejected. These modern frameworks of salvation in non-subtle terms ask only one question "what must I think to be saved?" That's because we desperately want to live exactly how we want uninterrupted by any external force. So salvation is a one time 60 second mental trip that gives the freedom we need to be exactly who we were before our "salvation" with the added bonus that we have a guaranteed ticket to heaven. Every theological construct needed for us to escape responsibility to our Creator becomes central to our framework. Our entire soul is thus contained in a little spot of prefrontal cortex of our brains, (called saving faith) leaving us free for a life driven by our urges, appetites, fears, perversions and passions.

It has been my experience that the more I devote myself to biblical scholarship the deeper my commitment to walk the walk, to take up my personal cross, to focusing on what love means vertically and horizontally the less the escapism of "easy salvation" appeals. It is foundational to me that I have been asked to present myself as a living sacrifice. We don't hear that much in church anymore unless it is just another one of our cherished metaphors.

If there is a single reality presented from Genesis to Revelation it is the contention between mankind and our creator. It is a long broken road with a miracle in the middle. For unto us a child was born. To launch a new creation.

 

[rewriter]

Biblestudent78, I can largely agree with what you wrote with one minor exception. There is a largely quiet period in the history of Christian tradition from about 70 to 110 CE. That is bad enough, but even worse is that there appears to be some contradictions to the official record from archeology regarding the period from roughly 33-70 CE. These contradictions suggest that perhaps the differences between Jesus and official Judaism were not as serious as we often think. One major issue is that there was only one permanent member of the Sanhedrin, but that single person was high ranking and would have had access to Pilate, and in 33 CE Pilate was looking for political cover according to historical sources. But at least this individual's name was Joseph, the problem arises when one considers his last name and possible hometown, usually presented as Arimathea in a Christian context, but to the best of my knowledge that cannot be confirmed. But he would have reason to avoid being officially connected with an, in Roman eyes, living rebel he would have easy access to large quantities of Myhr and aloe, and is connected to Antipas, Pilate and Jesus in at least one questioned historic record.

Now the problem is that such a connection is clearly outside existent Christian tradition, and moving out of tradition can be very scary.

 

[biblestudent78]

One of the problems in this space is that information is sketchy at best. Many who may have written about the time of Jesus were probably killed in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. As far as can be determined, none of the Gospel writers ever met Jesus. Their credibility lies in their unique witness. Each varies from the others thus indicating an honest effort reconstruct the story.

The two external sources about these times are Josephus

And Eusebius

 

[rewriter]

I differ with you on the gospel writers. Luke clearly never met Jesus, Matthew I find doubtful, Mark maybe but the original writer of John, and according to tradition, the rewriter of John definitely knew Jesus. There are multiple hints from Eusebius that suggest the original writer of John had to know Jesus very well, and tradition makes the Apostle John the person who rewrote the gospel. But then I date Mark to no later than 49 CE and John's first edition to the mid-50's. I date Matthew to the mid-60's. Luke-Acts is clearly from 70 or later, and I find Theophilus 's identity to be a no-brainer. Luke almost screams out the individual's real name, but tradition, to my mind, sees great reason to bury a lot of what Luke implied. John's reworking of the gospel is another case of acting to bury inconvenient information. Mark was also reworked, but at least on ancient source implies that Mark himself made most of the changes.

Remembering that in the 1st century, good writing was not totally original but rather followed some approved, well-established pattern/model can lead one to looking for what pattern/model the gospel writers followed. Matthew and Luke seem to follow Greco-Roman biography models, but Mark and John seem to follow different ones.

As for Eusebius, I suspect that he knew far more than he admitted to and only admitted to what he was certain he could sneak past Roman eyes or would not cause trouble for Christians.

 

[Karlon]

The location of the soul withi the body is by many in the mind but I think of the one commandment to love the Lord with all you heart all you mind body and soul and it got me thinking if it seperates the mind and soul in the commandment surely it must mean that they are separate in us. But does scripture say where it is located or does anyone have an idea where it could be?

Deuteronomy 6:9!

 

[biblestudent78]

I differ with you on the gospel writers. Luke clearly never met Jesus, Matthew I find doubtful, Mark maybe but the original writer of John, and according to tradition, the rewriter of John definitely knew Jesus. There are multiple hints from Eusebius that suggest the original writer of John had to know Jesus very well, and tradition makes the Apostle John the person who rewrote the gospel. But then I date Mark to no later than 49 CE and John's first edition to the mid-50's. I date Matthew to the mid-60's. Luke-Acts is clearly from 70 or later, and I find Theophilus 's identity to be a no-brainer. Luke almost screams out the individual's real name, but tradition, to my mind, sees great reason to bury a lot of what Luke implied. John's reworking of the gospel is another case of acting to bury inconvenient information. Mark was also reworked, but at least on ancient source implies that Mark himself made most of the changes.

Remembering that in the 1st century, good writing was not totally original but rather followed some approved, well-established pattern/model can lead one to looking for what pattern/model the gospel writers followed. Matthew and Luke seem to follow Greco-Roman biography models, but Mark and John seem to follow different ones.

As for Eusebius, I suspect that he knew far more than he admitted to and only admitted to what he was certain he could sneak past Roman eyes or would not cause trouble for Christians.

Most scholars date the Gospels between 70AD and 95AD. One of the reasons they were written so late was that all of the early Christians, led by Paul, believed Jesus was going to return in their lifetime. Their were many eye witnesses to Jesus still living so a gospel was not necessary. As those who followed and knew Jesus began to die off and because Jesus had not yet returned, they Gospel writers decided to write what they knew. Paul was already dead and the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem destroyed before the writers started. While most scholars agree that the Apostle John may have written the Gospel bearing his name - although he does not reveal it in the Gospel. The other challenge to John writing alone is that he was a grown man living a poor life as a member of a fishing family on the sea of Galilee. For perhaps 5 generations those living in the Roman province of Galilee spoke Aramaic. Greek was spoken in the largest cities, but not in Galilee. So how does a poor fisherman who only spoke Aramaic as a grown man write a Gospel using simple but elegant Greek?

Mark could not have written his Gospel until after the death of his traveling companion and teacher, the Apostle Paul who was executed in or about 65 AD. Luke writes that he did original research in order to write his Gospel and the Book of Acts. Paul never quotes anything from any Gospel in his lifetime and he wrote numerous letters naming prominent Christians and only mentions meeting Peter and James. He never claim to have read anything they wrote. Mark references the Temple destruction in chapter 13.

Matthew (c. 75–90 AD): Generally dated after Mark, often in the 70s or 80s AD. It reflects a community dealing with separation from Judaism, and according to early tradition (Papias), was written first, but modern scholarship usually argues for its dependence on Mark.
Luke (c. 75–90 AD): Written by the same author as Acts, this gospel is generally dated in the 80s AD. Evidence for this time frame includes its use of Mark and its context reflecting a later generation of believers.
John (c. 90–100 AD): Generally considered the last Gospel, written near the end of the 1st century. Despite this late date, the earliest New Testament papyrus fragment, P52, is a fragment of John found in Egypt and dated to approximately AD 150

 

[rewriter]

Most scholars date the Gospels between 70AD and 95AD. One of the reasons they were written so late was that all of the early Christians, led by Paul, believed Jesus was going to return in their lifetime. Their were many eye witnesses to Jesus still living so a gospel was not necessary. As those who followed and knew Jesus began to die off and because Jesus had not yet returned, they Gospel writers decided to write what they knew. Paul was already dead and the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem destroyed before the writers started. While most scholars agree that the Apostle John may have written the Gospel bearing his name - although he does not reveal it in the Gospel. The other challenge to John writing alone is that he was a grown man living a poor life as a member of a fishing family on the sea of Galilee. For perhaps 5 generations those living in the Roman province of Galilee spoke Aramaic. Greek was spoken in the largest cities, but not in Galilee. So how does a poor fisherman who only spoke Aramaic as a grown man write a Gospel using simple but elegant Greek?

Mark could not have written his Gospel until after the death of his traveling companion and teacher, the Apostle Paul who was executed in or about 65 AD. Luke writes that he did original research in order to write his Gospel and the Book of Acts. Paul never quotes anything from any Gospel in his lifetime and he wrote numerous letters naming prominent Christians and only mentions meeting Peter and James. He never claim to have read anything they wrote. Mark references the Temple destruction in chapter 13.

Matthew (c. 75–90 AD): Generally dated after Mark, often in the 70s or 80s AD. It reflects a community dealing with separation from Judaism, and according to early tradition (Papias), was written first, but modern scholarship usually argues for its dependence on Mark.
Luke (c. 75–90 AD): Written by the same author as Acts, this gospel is generally dated in the 80s AD. Evidence for this time frame includes its use of Mark and its context reflecting a later generation of believers.
John (c. 90–100 AD): Generally considered the last Gospel, written near the end of the 1st century. Despite this late date, the earliest New Testament papyrus fragment, P52, is a fragment of John found in Egypt and dated to approximately AD 150

You are correctly citing the popular dates on the gospels, but I dig deeper. There is a Dead Sea Scroll fragment, dated to 49 CE that just contains a few letters. However, in all the ancient manuscripts currently known, the only ones that have the letters in the proper relative position to each other (they are present on both sides of the fragment) the only match is the Gospel of Mark.

As for Paul quoting the gospels, it is true that he does not. However, he does make numerous comments that very closely parallel Jesus's words in the Synoptics, this has been recognized since the 1800's. John also has numerous passages that have parallels in Paul. The gospel writers and Paul seem to have used some common source, plausibly the document known as "Q", which has been lost.

Then there are other passages in both John and Paul that seem to be paralleled. And some difficult to explain passages in Paul make perfect sense in certain passages in John are interpreted in a different fashion, a fashion linked to a point Dodd found in the early 20th century, confirmed by Bultmann in the mid 20th and Brown in the late 20th, and which would fit with a rewritten John. John also shows many very proper stylistic patterns for ancient writings, but the rules are not followed for how the patterns are to be presented, as if they were reorganized by a lesser writer. But the passages and the style would not make any sense to link to Jesus after 64, but would make excellent sense in the mid 50's, the same time frame when the parallels in Paul's writings make the most sense. Now it could be pure coincidence, but do you want to bet much on that?

Matthew definitely uses Mark and adds to Mark. But parts that are added make the most sense in the mid 60's and would suggest an evolution from Paul in the mid-50's and hence also John. Luke and Acts make the most sense if written in the early 70's. But ALL this evidence from Paul, Mark, John and Matthew falls into a category of something to be denied by 73 CE at the latest, Luke-Acts becomes a problem by the early 2nd century at the latest, possibly as early as the mid 90's. Now tradition then requires that certain connections be denied for the good of the church between the early 2nd century for at least two hundred years, quite plausibly much longer. After that long, who wants to challenge tradition, after all, the earlier generations were closer to the actual events and thus knew more. And anyone writing the official history who might know better would also be inclined to continue the deception if he saw reason to, and angering Constantine would not do.

 

[rewriter]

Most scholars date the Gospels between 70AD and 95AD. One of the reasons they were written so late was that all of the early Christians, led by Paul, believed Jesus was going to return in their lifetime. Their were many eye witnesses to Jesus still living so a gospel was not necessary. As those who followed and knew Jesus began to die off and because Jesus had not yet returned, they Gospel writers decided to write what they knew. Paul was already dead and the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem destroyed before the writers started. While most scholars agree that the Apostle John may have written the Gospel bearing his name - although he does not reveal it in the Gospel. The other challenge to John writing alone is that he was a grown man living a poor life as a member of a fishing family on the sea of Galilee. For perhaps 5 generations those living in the Roman province of Galilee spoke Aramaic. Greek was spoken in the largest cities, but not in Galilee. So how does a poor fisherman who only spoke Aramaic as a grown man write a Gospel using simple but elegant Greek?

Mark could not have written his Gospel until after the death of his traveling companion and teacher, the Apostle Paul who was executed in or about 65 AD. Luke writes that he did original research in order to write his Gospel and the Book of Acts. Paul never quotes anything from any Gospel in his lifetime and he wrote numerous letters naming prominent Christians and only mentions meeting Peter and James. He never claim to have read anything they wrote. Mark references the Temple destruction in chapter 13.

Matthew (c. 75–90 AD): Generally dated after Mark, often in the 70s or 80s AD. It reflects a community dealing with separation from Judaism, and according to early tradition (Papias), was written first, but modern scholarship usually argues for its dependence on Mark.
Luke (c. 75–90 AD): Written by the same author as Acts, this gospel is generally dated in the 80s AD. Evidence for this time frame includes its use of Mark and its context reflecting a later generation of believers.
John (c. 90–100 AD): Generally considered the last Gospel, written near the end of the 1st century. Despite this late date, the earliest New Testament papyrus fragment, P52, is a fragment of John found in Egypt and dated to approximately AD 150

I just thought of two things you might wish to look at. The first is the OT account of the scapegoat and the second is the account of Jesus and Barabbas with Pilate. Once you have looked at both and spotted the key details about the scapegoat and what went on with Jesus and Barabbas, find a second instance of this NT account of a reported policy of release of a prisoner, good luck on that.

Hint, hint, there are two virtually identical goats, the one to be driven out from the people bears a scarlet thread. And think about what Barabbas means, son of the father and what Jesus's title was, Son of God (the father) as well as the color of the robe put on Jesus.