The Bible and the Immortal Soul

[Roses Ablaze]

I haven't read the Bible, but a philosophy book, two clergypeople and a religion professor whom I deeply respect all say that the Bible never says anything about a soul that's separate from the body. This is what the philosophy book says:

The Biblical View of Souls​

Many People Believe that the existence of a soul capable of existing independently of the body is a central tenet of Christian teaching. Biblical scholars disagree. The Bible, they tell us, presents a monastic view of the person in which the mind and body are inseparable from one another. British theologian Adrian Thatcher explains:

There appears to be a rare unanimity among biblical scholars that the biblical picture of the person is non-dualist, and that the Bible gives little or no support to the idea that a person is essentially a soul, or that the soul is separable from the body. Dualists, of course may reply that, regardless of what the Bible said about the issue then, dualism offers a convincing framework for Christian teaching now. Even so, they cannot get around the fact that, from a biblical point of view, dualism is very odd. Lynn de Silva summarizes the position thus:

Biblical scholarship has established quite conclusively that there is no dichotomous concept of man in the Bible, such as is found in Greek and Hindu thought. The biblical view of the man is holistic, not dualistic. The notion of the soul as an immortal entity which enters the body at birth and leaves it at death is quite foreign to the biblical view of man. The biblical view is that man is a unity; he is a unity of soul, body, flesh, mind, etc. all together consisting of the whole man. None of the constituent elements is capable of separating itself from the total structure and continuing to live after death...

Why are Biblical scholars unanimously agreed that the Bible gives us no reason for believing in an immortal soul? Because the words that get translated as soul, such as "nephesh" and "psuche," mean living, breathing creature, and because the story of the resurrection makes no sense if there are such things as immortal souls. Thatcher explains:

The resurrection and ascension of Christ seem clearly to exclude the dualistic accounts of the human person. The death of Christ was a real and total death, not merely the death of his mortal body. The miracle of resurrection is precisely that God raises Jesus from the dead, not that he raises Jesus' mortal body and reunites it with his immortal soul. What purpose does the resurrection of Jesus serve, we may ask, if Jesus was not really dead? Was it just to convince the disciples that the bonds of death were forever loosened? Hardly, for if the disciples had believed in immortal souls they would not have required assurance on that point; and if they had needed such assurance, a resurrection miracle would not have provided it; it would merely have caused confusion. The ascension of Christ is also rendered superfluous by a dualist account of the person; for the soul of Christ, being alive after his physical death, would presumably have been capable of returning to the Father without its body. What then is the ascension? A highly visual way of saying cheerio? It is, rather, the return of the transformed, transfigured, glorified, yet still embodied, Christ to the Father. No particular historical version of the event is favored by arguing thus. The point is that the theological convictions expressed by the resurrection and ascension narratives make much better sense on the assumption that all men and women are essentially bodily unities, after, as well as before, their bodily deaths.

 

[Zeta]

There sure are a lot of things in Christianity like purgatory, seperate souls, and the rapture that were added much later after the Bible was written, but are still taken for granted as having always been there. That's true of any religion, but being raised in an 80% Christian culture, you never really question the fact that the general public's view of Christianity is 100% true to the original text of the Bible . . . but that doesn't appear to actually be the case.

 

[Geodude]

the Bible never says anything about a soul that's separate from the body.

That is correct. Ezekiel 18:4 says, "The soul that is sinning, it itself will die." Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[Barb]

"The soul that is sinning...it itself will die." - Ezekiel 18:4. It's pretty simple. Humans are souls. That is what the Bible explicitly states. The doctrine of immortality of the soul can be found in Egyptian tombs as well as in the writings of Plato. As Zeta noted, there is a difference--often a big difference--between what a religion teaches and what the Bible really says.

 

[Geodude]

Heh, Barb and I had the exact same thought at just about the exact same time.

Also, when Adam was created, Genesis 2:7 says that he "came to be a living soul." Note, "be", not "have".

 

[TTEchidna]

Blame Dante for that one. The guy thought he was important enough to write what is, essentially, a religious fanfic with a self-insert.

 

[Fig]

Blaming Dante for the Christian belief in an immortal soul separate from the body sounds to me rather like blaming the car crash for the drunk driving.

 

[Barb]

If you want to assign 'blame,' then blame Plato for his concept of platonic dualism and blame some of the early church leaders to tried to graft that concept onto Christianity.

 

[Maxim Posthumus]

Relax, you will know everything when you die.
Hah hah heh hah.

 

[ImJessieTR]

If I recall, no one thought Lazarus could be raised from the dead because over four days had passed, and the idea is that the soul leaves the body at that time. Jesus was resurrected just before the deadline (so to speak ). However, this view (that the body and soul are one until a certain time) could be explained by the Hellenization of the Jewish population (aka: Jews absorbed Greek thought) by the time this occurred. Besides, Jesus' "Hey look what happened to my wrists" speech to His apostles also proves the primary idea that resurrection was embodied (which actually sucks if you're body was screwed up before you died -- at least with the dualistic notion you get a nice upgraded heavenly body).

 

[xRubyx]

Hmmmm I really don't know what to say about this. So uh.. just blame Dante x.x

 

[TTEchidna]

If I recall, no one thought Lazarus could be raised from the dead because over four days had passed, and the idea is that the soul leaves the body at that time. Jesus was resurrected just before the deadline (so to speak ). However, this view (that the body and soul are one until a certain time) could be explained by the Hellenization of the Jewish population (aka: Jews absorbed Greek thought) by the time this occurred. Besides, Jesus' "Hey look what happened to my wrists" speech to His apostles also proves the primary idea that resurrection was embodied (which actually sucks if you're body was screwed up before you died -- at least with the dualistic notion you get a nice upgraded heavenly body).

I thought it was more because he was, by then, becoming a nasty, rotting corpse...

And I blamed Dante because he affirmed it, as well as the geocentric theory. Took forever to that that second one off the books, as you know...

 

[ImJessieTR]

Yeah, but Lazarus only beat Jesus's time in the tomb by 24 hrs. what's the diff?

 

[TTEchidna]

Good question...


I dunno. How fast does an adult human body rot?

 

[Barb]

How fast a body decomposes is based on several factors. A body left exposed to the elements will decompose faster than one in water (particularly saltwater). Jesus' body was wrapped in clean linen bandages that contained spices, including myrrh and aloes, according to Jewish custom, which is also how Lazarus was buried. The spices, aloes, and cloth would delay decomposition for some time, as opposed to the bodies just being entombed.

 

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

Being Christian, I think I am more qualified to state what the bible says than you folks are.


1. The Bible DOES say that humans have an immortal soul, learn to read the whole bible not just go quoting verses to fit your need.

2. The rapture is NOT in the bible, Purgatory is. Neither were added or taken away. Many want to deny this, but its true.

3. Catholics are not solo-scriptorists.

4. The soul that is sinning will be dead in sanctifying grace, a soul cannot "die" but you guys have to learn that the bible says a lot of things that have hidden meanings. When you are in mortal sin, you are "dead" in sin.

So really, basically everything your saying to put down Christians is down the tubes. You don't want to believe in God, not my problem. Just don't go acting like you have a clue what Christians really believe.

 

[Fig]

Barb is Christian too, and so far she's consistently shown herself to be better informed than you.

Not that it's much of a compliment to Barb.

 

[ImJessieTR]

Understand, Mr. Sawyer, that a Protestant bible is unlikely to have proof of Purgatory, since that's a Catholic thing. Besides, although the common notion of rapture (at the end of days everyone for Christ will just teleport to heaven), they may be getting the idea from the one or two people who went to heaven without dying (Enoch & Elijah at least). So the premise is in the bible, even if the notion of the apocalyptic rapture is not.

Solo-scriptorists?

It would also help if you could provide biblical evidence with your statements.

 

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

Well, from what I know the New Testament is the same in both the Catholic and Protestant bible. I'm the most informed one here, although truth is hardly recognized when it is an unknown concept.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Well, from what I know the New Testament is the same in both the Catholic and Protestant bible. I'm the most informed one here, although truth is hardly recognized when it is an unknown concept.

Post Biblical scripture, then. PROVE you're the most informed. Don't just say it.