Shalom! My name is Adam Pastor

Welcome to ADONI MESSIAH which means
"My Lord Messiah" -
a fitting epithet to who Jesus (or Yeshua) is!

Here, I attempt to present the Apostolic Truths according to the Scriptures, that there is
One GOD, the Father, namely, YAHWEH,
and One Lord, GOD's only begotten Son,
Yeshua the Messiah.

And that one day YAHWEH will send His Son back to Earth to inaugurate the Everlasting Kingdom of GOD



Enjoy!


Saturday, September 16, 2006

Hebrews 1:8

Based upon: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=138

(Please note: my citing of this article does not mean I agree with every subject on www.biblicalunitarian.com esp. in regards to their non-christological teachings)

 

Hebrews 1:8

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (KJV)


1. The English language makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god.” Thus, in English Bibles, the heavenly Father is called “God,” while ... people with God’s authority on earth and important people such as kings, are also called “god” ... The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books. [38]

Since all texts were in upper case script, if we translated Genesis 1:1 and 2 as it appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts, it would read:

IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH NOW THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND EMPTY DARKNESS WAS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE DEEP AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS HOVERING OVER THE WATERS.

Actually, Bible students should be aware that in both the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there were no spaces between the words, no punctuation marks, no chapters and no verses. The original texts of both the Old and New Testament were capital letters all run together, and it looked like this:

INTHEBEGINNINGGODCREATEDTHEHEAVENSANDTHEEARTHNOWT HEEARTHWASFORMLESSANDEMPTYDARKNESSWASOVERTHESURFA EOFTHEDEEPANDTHESPIRITOFGODWASHOVERINGOVERTHEWATERS

Of course, the entire Bible was hand-printed exactly the same way, with every letter in upper case and no spaces between any words. As you can imagine, that made reading very difficult, and so it was common to read aloud, even when reading to yourself, to make it easier. That is why Philip the Evangelist could hear the Ethiopian eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah (Acts 8:30). Such a text was hard to read and practically impossible to teach from. Imagine not being able to say, “Turn to Chapter 5, verse 15.” Therefore, divisions in the text began to appear quite early. However, because scribes lived far apart and hand-copied manuscripts, the divisions in the various manuscripts were not uniform. The first standardized divisions between verses came into being around 900 AD., and the modern chapter divisions were made in the 1200s.

It should now be very clear that there was just no way to distinguish between “God” and “god” in the early texts, and so it must always be determined from the context whether or not the word “GOD” is referring to the Father or to some lesser being. Although it was usual that the presence of the definite article in the Greek text alerted the reader that the “GOD” being referred to was the Father, this was not always the case ... For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word “theos” has the definite article, but the verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated “God” or “god.”

 

2. The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word “God” with a broader meaning than we do today. “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God’s authority.
In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be “a god” (mistranslated in most versions as “God”), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the word of God came were called “GODS” (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that “God” refers to the True God and “gods” referred to lesser deities).

Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether “God” or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether “GOD” refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God. One example of this occurs in Exodus 21:6, which instructs a master whose servant wishes to serve him for life to bring the servant “to Elohim.” The KJV, the NIV and many others believe that the owner of the servant is supposed to bring the servant before the local authorities, and so they translate Elohim as “judges” (see also Ex. 22:8-9 for more examples). Other translators felt that the master was required to bring the servant to God, so they translated Elohim as “God”(e.g., NRSV). Thus, the verse will read, “God” or “judges,” depending on the translation.

Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word “theos” (“GOD”) is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to “god” in the biblical sense that great men are called “god.” The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men in places like Psalm 82 where men represent God. The context must be the determining factor in deciding what “GOD” refers to. In this case, in Hebrews that we are studying, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of “theos” here should be translated “god.”

3. The context must determine whether Christ is being referred to as the Supreme Being or just a man with great authority, so it must be read carefully. In this case, however, one need not read far to find that Christ, called “God,” himself has a “God.” The very next verse, Hebrews 1:9, says, “therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions.” Thus, Christ cannot be the supreme God, because the supreme God does not have a God. Furthermore, Christ’s God “set” him above others and “anointed” him. This makes it abundantly clear that the use of theos here in Hebrews is not referring to Christ being the supreme God, but rather a man with great authority under another God. Andrews Norton writes:

Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: “Here the Son is addressed by the title God: but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.” [39]

4. The verse is a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7. The Jews read this verse for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.

5. We must note that the verse in the Greek text can also be translated as, “Thy throne is God.” However, because the verse is a reference from the Old Testament, and because we believe that God, the Father, is calling His Christ a “god” (i.e., one with divine authority), there is no need to translate the verse other than, “Thy throne, O god, is forever.” [For further study, read Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God?”]

Broughton and Southgate, pp. 196 and 197

Buzzard, pp. 35

Dana, pp. 205 and 206

Farley, pp. 71 and 72

Morgridge, pp. 110 and 111

Norton, pp. 301 and 302

Snedeker, pp. 459-46

38. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford University Press, NY, 1992), pp. 8-10.

39. Andrews Norton, Statement of Reasons, p. 301.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Concerning 1 John 5:7 & 1 Tim. 3:16 by George F. Simmons

Here is an excerpt from George F. Simmons' 1839 tract entitled
"Who Was Jesus Christ?"

I quote a portion of his tract which deals with the spuriousness of
1 John 5:7 & 1 Tim 3:16 :-

  • 1 John 5:7. "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth] the spirit, the water, and the blood…"

    Thus reads our English translation. But the words enclosed in brackets are spurious; that is, they are no part of the Bible, no part of the epistle as it was written by John, but have been added without authority at a later time. This is not a matter of any doubt; it is a certainty, and universally allowed at the present day by the advocates, as well as by the opponents, of the Trinity.

    A writer in the Eclectic Review, for instance, "the religious character of which is unsuspiciously orthodox," writes thus of the passage: "We are unspeakably ashamed that any modern divines should have fought for the retention of a passage so indisputably spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or half a score of passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation."

    Bishop Lowth, also a Trinitarian and a learned man, is equally decided. "We have some wranglers in theology," he says, "sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend anything, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse 1 John 5:7."

    I do not therefore dwell on this text for the sake of making its spuriousness any more evident, but because its history will illustrate the manner in which some few other corruptions have crept into our text.

    The books of the New Testament are written in the Greek language from which our English Testament is a translation. Before the invention of printing, the Greek text was handed down by means of manuscript copies of the different parts, on parchment or paper, each taken from one more ancient, and so originally from the autograph of the apostle or evangelist himself. Of these manuscripts we have a large number preserved to us, of different degrees of antiquity, dating probably from the seventh century downwards. Of this epistle of John between one and two hundred codices have been examined; and from this number only one is found containing our present text, or rather, I should say, containing a form of words nearly resembling our present text. That one is the Dublin manuscript. When Erasmus published his edition of the Greek Testament about the period of the Reformation, knowing this verse to be spurious, he of course omitted it; but when his first and his second editions appeared without it, the uninformed "Orthodox" of the day, who had been accustomed to read the text in their Latin translation, "the Vulgate," raised a great clamor against the learned Editor for omitting their favorite stronghold. He answered that it was no part of the epistle of John, and that if they would produce a single manuscript containing it, he would insert it. This Dublin manuscript was finally produced, and in his third and subsequent editions he did insert it, for the sake, as he says, "of avoiding calumny." Thence it has come into the common editions of the present day. But Luther rejected it in his translation, as well as others in theirs; and in some versions and editions it is enclosed in brackets.

    The corruption of the Dublin manuscript is discovered, by certain signs which it would be out of place to explain here, to have been imitated from the Latin Vulgate, which was the version in common use throughout Catholic countries. It appears in the greater part of the copies of this version, although from the best manuscripts of that also, it is cast out. It is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, although in the Arian controversy which arose in the fourth century, we find the Scriptures ransacked from beginning to end, and even the verse succeeding this cited to furnish confirmation to the doctrine of the Trinity. It was not quoted by them because it was not there. Nor do we find it in the writings of any Latin writer, till Vigilius Tapsensis at the end of the fifth century. It was possibly first inserted in the Vulgate by him, for it was his habit to put his own words in other people’s mouth, and he is supposed to be the author of the creed which goes by the name of Athanasius. But it may, more probably, have been first written in the margin, according to the custom of that age, as a note or gloss, and by a subsequent transcriber have been incorporated into the text, by mistake, or as an authority convenient to the advocates of the Trinity and supposed to be conformable to the true opinions of St. John. It has thence stolen into the fashionable texts of different languages, and stands there like a thief in the crowd, whom everybody knows but nobody seizes. We would better now lay hands on it at once, and cross out the suppositious words in all the Bibles we may possess.

    In this state of the case, it is a very wicked treachery to use this text in argument; and it is also wrong, as it seems to me, to read it from the pulpit without comment, as a part of the epistle, thereby imposing on the ignorant and giving countenance to forgery. The former offense we have to charge on no writers of consideration at the present day; but the latter, I believe, is the prevalent custom in the Trinitarian churches. ...

  • 1 Timothy 3:16. It thus reads in our English: "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

    The true Bible reading is decided to be "He who was manifest in the flesh" (i.e. Christ) "was justified in the spirit, seen of angels…" It being admitted by men of all modes of belief who have examined the matter that the present is not the true reading, the only doubt is between "which" and "he who." And you will easily perceive by merely looking at the Greek letters how the word "God" might have arisen from either of these. The Greek for God, contracted, as is usual in the manuscripts, is QS. The Greek for "he who" is OS. The Greek for "which" is O. Now the copyist seeing O might have added S to make it OS, or finding OS might have added the two dashes which convert it into QS signifying God, either by mistake, or more probably from thinking that they had been omitted from mistake by his predecessor, and his theological opinions would have led him to prefer the latter reading. This conjecture is made probable by its having been discovered that the two dashes in question have been added to several of the important manuscripts by an after hand, and with a different ink from that in which the rest is written. But however these conjectures of the manner of the corruption may be received, it is placed beyond any reasonable doubt that the word "God" is no part of the genuine text.

    The manner in which the passage is often cited is an instance of the looseness with which thoughtless readers generally interpret texts of a like kind. It is frequently quoted as if it read "Great is the mystery of the Godhead," but "godliness" means nothing of the sort. Godliness means piety, which it is the great burden of the epistle to enforce. You will perceive from reading the previous and succeeding chapters that certain schismatics had arisen in the church of Ephesus, who inculcated celibacy and an ascetic life as that which was acceptable to God. And there were those also who professed to reveal the hidden philosophy of religion, the mystery of the faith, the secret things of heaven and of futurity, against whom the warning in the last verses of the last chapter is pronounced, and to whom History traces much of the gradual corruption of Christianity. To these teachers Paul alludes in the present text. He has instructed Timothy that with regard to officers of the church, the great concern is that they should be pious; for however much value might be set on other pretended mysteries, yet "the pillar and ground of the truth, and without controversy great, is the mystery of piety. He who was manifest in the flesh, was justified in the spirit" was not justified by knowledge of a dark philosophy, but by the state of his soul, by inward purity, "was seen of angels," even to higher Intelligences was a spectacle of moral beauty, "was preached unto the Gentiles," ... "was believed on in the world," and among the believers were the Ephesians themselves, and finally was "received up into glory," which was a sign of confirmation and acceptance ... All this is a strong enforcement of the great principle that "the pillar and foundation of the faith is" (not asceticism, nor a knowledge of mysteries, but) piety, "godliness," a mysterious bliss, a state of the heart known only to the few who experience it. So that this text, far from favoring the way of thinking called orthodox, is one of those which might perhaps, without injustice, be turned directly against it; for I apprehend that those who follow that way are apt, like the Ephesian Gnostics (although the virtues of the truly devout are continually operating to counteract the tendency), to rely rather on their theological zeal and their knowledge of mysteries than on spiritual purity and heavenly-mindedness; or, at least, that they set a disproportionate value on the former class of virtues.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

How does Christ’s Sacrifice Work to Remove Sin? by Kenneth Westby

How does Christ’s Sacrifice Work to Remove Sin? Was it necessary for Jesus to be the Creator— being “worth more” than his creation— in order for his sacrifice to be effective in removing mankind’s sins? By Kenneth Westby

Since “the wages of sin is death,” and “all have sinned,” does it follow that to forgive sin, “pay” the debt of sin; the “payer” must be worth more than the entire sinful human race? Only the Creator of man could be worth more than his creation. Hence, for Jesus’ self-sacrifice to be effective in “paying” for the sins of humanity, he had to worth more than humanity and only the Creator fits that requirement. Jesus, assuming this premise, must have preexisted as the Creator in order for his sacrifice to be effective.

There is cash register logic to this proposition that is so commonly used to explain how Christ’s sacrifice pays for man’s sin. In times past I remember using this logic at baptismal counselings in explaining why Jesus had to die; the value of the sacrifice had to outweigh the debt. But is this really how sacrifice in Scripture works?

... We understand the Passover story of being under the sacrificial blood of a lamb to be pointing to Jesus, the Lamb of God. In that original Passover the blood of a slain lamb was painted upon the door lentil causing inhabitants to go under it to enter the dwelling and be spared from the death plague sweeping Egypt. The first born of all under the blood were spared from death.

Question: Was the killed lamb of greater worth than the human inhabitants within the home? Did the “angel of death” (sent by God) spare the firstborn of Israel because of the great worth of their animal sacrifice? Is that how sacrificing works? Was it their animal that delivered them or was it their obedience to God that merited his mercy.

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams (1 Sam 15:22). God asks, “Do I eat the flesh of strong bulls, or is the blood of goats my drink? Offer to God praise as your sacrifice and fulfill your vows to the Most High; then call upon me in time of distress; I will rescue you, and you shall glorify me” (Ps 50:13-15, NAB).

The only thing that made a sacrifice effective in the OT was God’s acceptance of it. The only sacrifices that he accepted were those offered with an obedient and pure heart. God said, “I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats…What are they to me?” God wants our heart and minds. He says, “Come now, let us reason together…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow…if you are willing and obedient…” (Isa 1:11-20).

Again, “the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel says: …I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all my ways I command you, that it may go well with you” (Jer 7:21-23).

What makes a sacrifice effective isn’t a magic formula that of its own can effect some desired result. The incantations and sacrifices of ignorant pagans have that cachet. Sacrifice in Scripture is directed Godward and appeals to his mercy and kindness. It functions like prayer which, if arising from a sincere and obedient heart and directed to the one true God, will be heard in heaven.

The blood of bulls, goats and lambs don’t remove sin and never did. God forgives and removes sins as he sees a repentant and sincere heart desiring to follow him. Continually God makes plain what he expects from man: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6).

Blood sacrifice in the OT was a deadly business. There was a vicarious element in the sacrificial rite that spoke a serious truth: God alone accepts or rejects (or ignores) the sacrifice based on the heart and actions of the one offering it. The sacrificer must identify with the sacrifice in the sense that its life is given to God with an appeal for God’s forgiveness, mercy and blessing.

Abraham’s offering of Isaac in sacrifice to God perfectly illustrates the dynamic. What was God’s objective in asking this supreme sacrifice—that of his only son, the son of promise? Was it not to measure the depth of Abraham’s belief, trust, and obedience to Yahweh? God didn’t want Isaac’s blood, just Abraham’s total commitment of mind, body and soul. It was the most difficult request ever made of a man and when Abraham obeyed God he was told, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Gn 22:12).

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son prefigures the Father’s gift of his son. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who ever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16).

What makes Christ’s sacrifice efficacious to forgive the sins of the world? Jesus’ sacrifice was not vicarious—he was the Lamb of God to be slain for the sins of the world. He willingly offered up himself for that purpose. So what made his sacrifice acceptable to his Father, Yahweh? Was it that he was “worth” more than the entire creation? Remember, God loved the world before he offered his son, and mercy and forgiveness is not based upon worth or merit.

What made Jesus the perfect and supreme sacrifice was that he was the unique, one and only Son of His Majesty; and, most importantly, that he was well pleasing to his Father. Jesus’ sacrifice is effective on our behalf because it has been accepted by God. This is called God’s mercy. “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rm 3:28).

What made Christ’s sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to his heavenly Father? Was it not the perfect fulfillment of the same expectations God has always had: reverent submission and obedience to him and his will? Speaking of Jesus, “he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he because the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him…” (Heb 5:7-9).

Jesus provided both the sacrifice and the proper attitude of heart to accompany the sacrifice. Jesus was a lamb without blemish not needing to repent of his own sins for he was sinless. Yet he became the vicarious offering for our sins. He did so in obedience and reverence for his God.

The Father was involved at both ends of this once-for-all-eternity sacrificial rite: He offered his son (like Abraham) and he also accepted the offering, the precious life-blood of his beloved son. He did this on our behalf.

For Christ’s part, the words of Psalm 40 fit perfectly: “Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will O God” (vs 7). Jesus’ life was one of total submission and obedience to his Father, the Creator. The will of the Father was Jesus’ all consuming concern (see Lk 22:42; Jn 4:34). Further, “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (vs 10).

Scripture makes plain that the Father accepted his son’s sacrifice because he was a “son in whom I am well pleased.” What made Jesus a perfect and pleasing sacrifice? Everything about him: his heart, mind and strength, his love, mercy, justice, character and his total obedience and devotion to the heavenly Father. Jesus said “I do all things to please him” (Jn 8:29).

This is why the Father graciously accepted Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf and offers to remove the sins of all who come in the spirit of his son. Peter announced to the multitudes on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Ac 2:38).

God wants us to become like his son in heart, mind and action. He is a merciful and kind God ready and willing to forgive. He asks that we come in the name and spirit of his son and not only will he forgive our sins, but raise us to eternal life as he did his son.

It is not cash-register logic (Jesus had to preexist as Creator in order to be worth more than the debts of sinful humanity) that is required to pay for sin. It is the love and mercy of God the Father and Jesus Christ that forgives our sins and brings us into the Kingdom of God.

The Bible plainly tells us what was required to forgive the sins of the world: A perfect sacrifice—the man Jesus, Son of God, Son of Man; and the mercy of our good and gracious Father.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Solely the righteous shall be immortal!

The main reason why I have never believed that the wicked will consciously burn forever in Hell was the fact that any way you want to break it down or look at it ... that would be immortality. It may not be nice immortality however it is immortality nonetheless!

Since immortality means: deathlessness, one cannot die and since the wicked are supposedly burning forever because they cannot die ... that is immortality!
And knowing full well, that immortality is in fact, a gift that GOD has ordained solely for the righteous ... the children of the Resurrection; it thus could not be for the wicked! Hence, the doctrine of the wicked burning whilst alive forever cannot be true! Case closed!

Since then ...

  • I have learn that this doctrine has pagan sources.
  • That the words translated everlasting/eternal/for ever are Greek words which pertain to an age, eon, aeon, epoch i.e. the Age To Come

    Thus eternal/everlasting life means Life in that Age [to Come], zoe aionios; and eternal fire means Fire in that Age [to Come] and everlasting punishment means Punishment in that Age [to Come]

    The Scriptures split up time into Ages ... this Present Evil Age [Gal 1.4] and the Age To Come [Matt 12.32, Mark 10.30, Luke 18.30, Heb 6.5, Luke 20.35, etc]
    Thus, some will receive Life in the Age To Come whilst others will receive Punishment & Destruction via Fire in the Age To Come.

    The Jews call the Age To Come, Olam Haba
    Always remember that the Bible is a Hebrew Book to be read with a Hebrew mindset; it is a Book full of Hebrew expressions, Hebraisms, etc; and that the NT is based on the Hebrew Bible i.e. the OT.
    Although the NT is written in Greek ... it is written with a Hebrew mindset.
    (One should not read later Greek/Hellenistic pagan ideas into the Scriptures)

    Compare: (Dan 12:2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    Thus the dead who are NOW asleep IN the dust of the earth ... will awake i.e. be resurrected ... Some, to Life in the Age To Come (Hebrew, Chayay olam, life in the Age).
    Whilst others, to shame and contempt in the Age To Come i.e. Punishment.

    The Hebrew word for 'everlasting' like their Greek equivalents speak of 'an age/epoch'

  • Again, I learnt whilst studying the source of this erroneous doctrine, that is, that the wicked consciously burn forever; that the main reason behind this doctrine is the so-called doctrine of the immortal soul - the immortality of the soul

    Obviously then, if man indeed, had inherently a part of them that simply cannot die viz. a soul. If someone doesn't get saved; rejects the Gospel of GOD; and thus on Judgment Day is thrown in the Lake of Fire; since such a one is inherently immortal; hence such a one consciously burns forever!
    Hence, the Problem!

    However, I have learn that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not from Scripture but is from Pagan Sources!
    The Bible does NOT teach that a human has a soul ... rather a Human is a Soul

    Thus a human/person is mortal = a soul is mortal.
    When one dies ... the whole person/soul dies! Awaiting the resurrection.

  • For years like many, I believed that humans alone 'have souls' whilst animals/beasts etc don't!

    Then to my shock I found out that the KJV translators subtly hid the fact that the Bible calls all living creatures, i.e. humans & animals, whether fowl, land-dwelling or marine, Living Souls!!!
    (No doubt what greatly separate us is the fact that humans are made in the Image of GOD; animals/beasts are not!)

    The translators hid the fact that the Hebrew word for soul, nephesh; is used to describe both humans and animals
    They subtly translated living nephesh as living 'soul' when it comes to humans; and living 'creature' when it comes to animals! Thus promoting the false idea that humans alone are living souls whilst animals are not!

    See for yourself ... the Hebrew word for 'soul' nephesh has already occurred four times in the Hebrew Bible before Gen 2.7 when it speaks of man!
    The words below in bold are translated from the Hebrew words meaning 'living soul' (nephesh chayah):-

    (Gen 1:20-21) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    (Gen 1:24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    (Gen 1:30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life ... literally in the Hebrew, wherein there is a living soul
    Compare the Darby Bible's translation of this verse: Genesis 1:30 and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so.

    (Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    For other examples to confirm this usage of living soul, nephesh chayah, see Gen 2.19, 9.10,12,15,16; Lev 11.46

    As one writer put it,
    QUOTE: "The translators of our English versions have rendered us a disservice by concealing this fact. They were apparently so tied to the notion that the word "soul" must mean "immortal soul," the possession of man alone, that they were unwilling to reveal that "soul" is the common attribute of man and animal alike."

  • Lastly, then in studying the word nephesh and its Greek equivalent, psuche; I have realized that we are a soul rather than we have a soul [although nephesh/psuche is also used to describe your life, your personality i.e.
    to lay down your life = to lay down your soul
    to say that you are angry, one could say 'my soul is angry']

    Thus when one dies, one's life ceases; one's personality ceases; one simply ceases to live/exist ... until they are awaken via resurrection

    Thus one's entire being ... entire soul is mortal

  • Souls die ... when one dies one becomes a dead soul!
    Hence, a dead person is a dead soul!

    Right now within tombs & coffins are dead souls. When we bury our loved ones, we are burying a dead person/soul
    They sleep in the dust of the earth awaiting the resurrection. Incidentally, the word 'cemetery' comes from the Greek word,
    koimeterion which means a sleeping place.

    Concerning the Greek words aionios, aion; I will quote:
    Nigel Turner, Christian Words, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980, p.456, 452

p456:
"Aionios" acquired the sense in the Christian language "belonging to the 'olam.' " The dispensation intended in this special sense was that of the future, the Kingdom of Christ, the reign of Messiah. The "aionios" Gospel is not therefore in Christian language the "everlasting" Gospel. Christians do not suppose that the Gospel lasts for ever. Rather it is the Gospel concerning the Kingdom-age (Rev. 14:6). ...

p452
The "aion" to come is not therefore eternity as opposed to "time," and we must free ourselves from the philosophical concepts, "in time" and "out of time." . . .
[It is] misleading to translate the "aion" as "eternity," for the "aion" is still a period of time. It is no less imprecise to render "aionios life" as "eternal life."

Concerning the soul - Part 2

I was asked the following question ... Hi Adam Pastor, Do you think a dead body is a person?

My answer was:

A corpse is a dead person/soul.
A dead person is a dead soul.
Right now within tombs & coffins are dead souls.
What one buries or cremates is a dead person/soul

Jews in the OT were not allowed to touch dead souls ... (subtly translated dead body)
So a person according to the Hebrew Bible, dead or alive, is a soul/nephesh

Again, in the Bible, 'person=soul'
To touch or see or speak to a living person, is to touch, see & speak to a living soul.
To touch a dead person is to touch a dead soul.

It was Greek philosophy & Platonism that taught that a soul is some ethereal, immortal, incorporeal part of man.
The Scriptures teach no such thing.

See for yourself ...

(Lev 21:11)  Neither shall he go in to any dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;

(Num 9:6-7)  And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: 7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of YAHWEH in his appointed season among the children of Israel?

(Num 9:10)  Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto YAHWEH.

(Num 19:11)  He that toucheth the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of any man shall be unclean seven days.

(Num 19:13)  Whosoever toucheth the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of YAHWEH; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

(Num 19:16)  And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

(Hag 2:13)  Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

( See also http://adonimessiah.blogspot.com/2006/08/concerning-soul.html )

Age or Eternity - translating the Greek “aion” correctly

I came across this article which rightly brings out the meaning of the Greek phrase, aionios zoe, unfortunately translated as "eternal life" ... rather it should be life pertaining to the age [to come]

Age or Eternity - translating the Greek “aion” correctly

The Jewish hope all along was the messianic age. They call it the “Olam Haba”, that is “the Age to Come“. It is the Kingdom of God or more reverently, the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jews often avoid calling the name of God that they may not blaspheme, thus referring to Him as “Hashem” - that is, “the Name” - or other ways. We find a good example in Revelation where God is referred to as “the One sitting on the throne” or as “who was, who is and who is to come”, but very seldom as “God”.

The mission of John the Baptist was the preparation of the Kingdom, and Jesus picked up from where John left off. All his teaching was related to the Kingdom that was to be ushered in providing the nation turned and accepted him as their leader.

The Greek term “aionios”, translated “eternal” in Christian bibles, comes from the root “aion” (or in English we would say “eon”) literally meaning “age”. The setting of the gospels is Jewish and keeping in mind that the Jewish hope was (and is) “the Age to Come”, and knowing that Jesus’ message was about the Kingdom (Olam Haba = Age to Come), we may rightly conclude that when “aion” is used, the reference is to the Kingdom of God rather than to eternity, which is a possible, but not the primary meaning of the term, and doesn’t fit the Jewish setting.

There are many passages where Jesus talks about entering the Kingdom of Heaven/God. The righteous standard required was central in his teaching.

Now consider John 17:3 where Jesus is praying to the Father God:

“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

The term “eternal life” (“aionios zoe”) here, therefore, should more correctly be translated as “life belonging/pertaining to the Age”. Jesus’ thoughts are on the Kingdom of God, and he tells us how to obtain an entry ticket.

We need to make sure that we correctly understand and follow these words. Read it, ask questions about it. Meditate on it and pray about it.