Misconceptions about gods and the Bible

@jshm2 I don't know about all that. There may be some truth in it but people tend to take things to extreme for ideological, traditional, religious superstition.

Ancient Biblical Hebrew and koine Greek aren't spoken so if there were no English there would either be some other language or it would be forgotten if not translated into other languages.

@BlueSkyKing
Sure. Same as evolution or anything else.


Because they were written in a Judeo-Christian influenced culture. Chances are it would be that way in most places as that influence has proliferated throughout the globe, but it isn't exclusively applied to that specific God of the Bible. Even in the Bible itself this is true as Jehovah made Moses God to Aaron and Pharaoh.

Same as king.

He's a king. There are many kings. Charles is King. King Charles.

He's a god. There are many gods. Jehovah is God. Jehovah God.

@BibleData Come on. Jesus is Christian divinity. The resurrection myth and all.

@RedBaron
That doesn't mean what you think. Moses is Jewish/Christian divinity as well. The judges of Israel. All men who the Bible calls gods.

@BibleData But all of Christian dogma and theology is based on Jesus, Mary, and the immaculate conception and resurrection myths. A foundation of sand IMO.

@Holidaze What a stupid response.

@LordShadowfire
How could the definition of spirituality which you gave, be "of, relating to, or consisting of spirit" be interpreted as being a different animal than spirit?

You only think that because what you got in your head is a limited incomplete application. You have an interest in ghosts and the supernatural?

From my website on spirit: "The word ghost comes from the German word geist and has the same meaning as the word spirit. In folklore the words are often used in connection with the superstitious belief in the immortal soul. At 1 Samuel 28:7-25 King Saul goes to the spirit medium of En-dor. Earlier Jehovah had rejected the King for his faithlessness and the prophet Samuel had also rejected him just prior to his own death. Saul wanted to contact the spirit of Samuel, he wanted help from the prophet one last time. Some Bibles present the spirit of Samuel the witch produces written as "Samuel" in quotation marks, or as "what appeared to be Samuel" because it isn't actually Samuel, it's a demon trying to deceive Saul into thinking it's Samuel. Saul himself earlier had had the spirit mediums removed because it was against the Law of Moses. (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Samuel 28:3)" - https://semmelweisreflex.com/pneuma/prefacetop.php

So - the Latin spiritus mundi means Spirit of the world. the German zeitgeist means spirit of the times or age. Oxford defines zeitgeist as "the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time."

So, in your sentence on the house being occupied by the spirit of the former owner, someone with, as you say "half a brain" would assume you are talking about a ghost, but someone who were a little more informed would probably come to the same conclusion, but would also think it interesting that it could mean the influence of the man's spirit, his compelled mental inclination was evident in the house. So you could see personal markers of the man's personality, his thinking, his life experiences. The times he lived in.

Someone with a pagan believe system might think the man, in a metaphysical sense, was still occupying the house. An informed Bible student would think it was either an active imagination, a tall tale or a demonic presence like the spirit medium mentioned above.

What connection do you believe there is with the spirit and the soul?

@BibleData Simple. A spirit is a nonphysical being. Spirituality is about nonphysical beings.
Nope.
Absolutely. I alluded to a personal experience with the spirit of a dead person. What I saw that night sparked a lifelong fascination.
I mean, maybe. If someone is confused, it's easy enough to explain my intent. I meant to say the place was haunted. As in, occupied by a nonphysical being, or spirit.
Simplest explanation is usually right.
"Informed", lol. The Bible describes spirits of the dead, or ghosts if you prefer. King Saul consulted the spirit of Samuel, who lectured him about bothering the dead. Sound like a demon to you?
I've heard so many different definitions of the word soul that I just dismiss it at this stage. Allow me instead to define a human as I have come to understand the concept. A physical body, occupied by a spirit from the moment the brain begins to form. (I am convinced that the brain functions as a sort of control panel for operating the body.)

Yes, I know you defined a soul for me the other day, and I remember being very pleased with that definition, but for some idiot reason it escapes me at the moment.

@LordShadowfire
Correct. But that's only one example. It may seem archaic or pedantic of me to insist on being familiar with a word that isn't commonly used in the way I suggest, but there's a good reason for it. It gives you a broader understanding of what spirit is. Maybe it tells you something about the event you experienced in that house.


I didn't know it was a personal experience at first, I just thought it was an example of spirit being used in a sentence. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with your definition of a spirit as it is commonly used, i.e. ghost. Holy ghost. Holy spirit. Same thing. I only differ due to my Bible understanding that when we die that's it, so any ghost anyone sees is demonic. Like Samuel.

I've had a few experiences similar to your own.


That isn't what I was saying, even understanding that your sentence was about a ghost and what that is I also saw other applications as well that give me a broader picture then the limitations you put on the application of spirit as being exclusively spirt beings. There is more to spirituality than the supernatural.


But I think my explanation is the simplest.


Yes. It does. Prior to Samuel's death God had rejected Saul and by removing his (God's) spirit caused a bad spirit to take it's place. When God removes his spirit demons can take over, or his mental inclination would be contrary to God's spirit. So, God rejected Saul and Samuel, of course, had done the same, so why would Samuel's "spirit" come to tell Samuel anything? You say to lecture Saul on bothering the dead, but the Bible teaches all throughout that when we die, that's it. We die. Demons deceive people. That's what they do. They would have us think the Bible is wrong. That's why Saul himself had removed all of the spirit mediums. That's why it was an capital offense to the Jews.

So, in my broader application above, where the spirit of the man, not the nonphysical being, but his spirit as in he was there in spirit. Demons can use that to deceive people.


I know the feeling, man. Lately I can't remember any freakin' thing. The soul is basically the life. Like the Hebrew/Greek words for spirit can be translated as wind, breath, etc, the words for soul can be translated as life. So you could read one Bible translation that uses the word soul and another where it uses life. Translators, like anyone else, are biased, and tend to want to support the traditional immortal soul doctrine adopted by apostate Christianity.

https://similarworlds.com/christianity/4581315-The-Immortal-Soul-The-immortal-soul-is-a-pagan

@DocSavage
One of my favorites from back in the day. Seen it many times. I don't see where your analogy is that much different than my own statement on circular reasoning.


The gathering and interpretation of evidence is imperfect, probably biased then you build on the possibly faulty premise. All of that is fine until you start thinking (like the young overeducated rapscallion in this thread that couldn't back up his/her claim) that it's settled. Incontrovertible.

If Darwin had never popularized evolutionary theory all of the same evidence, claims, proof, supported belief could just as easily have been attributed to and concluded with creation.

@DocSavage
I understand that Chunk and @newjaninev2 had an argument where the terms were defined and the OP and subsequent discussion wasn't relevant to the broader application I was making but as I pointed out, I have two problems with that. 1. Jan had introduced the broader application, namely no proof of gods, and 2. She has been pasting that claim word for word since I've been here in many different threads.

@BibleData
True, but always within the same context. There are a handful of bible beaters here pushing the same idea that god is an omnipresent spiritual being responsible for life and the universe. Hence the same response. Neither side is interested in the Oxford definitions, it’s mainly the biblical interpretation. In which case the statement is correct.