The Pagan Immortal Soul

Author: RaymondSheen
DART
Religion
Bible
Soul

Posts

Total: 27
Topic's author
#1
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living.

When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.)

The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible.

Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB)

Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB)


Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): "Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret."

The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, V:ol. XIII, p. 467): "Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)."

The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): "In the New Testament, to 'save one's soul' (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some 'spiritual' part of man, as opposed to his 'body' (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical."

Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: "the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: "There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: "The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh."

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: "The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: "The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine's] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism."

Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: "The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander's conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts."

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: "The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life."

Plato's "Phaedo," Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246: "Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes."

Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35: "Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato."

Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods."

Also see

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027;
Donnegan's New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404

#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Interesting read.


Another idea that I currently run with is residual energy/data.

Sort of ties in with simulation theory.
#3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Some suggest this. Others don't.

Jewish thought has different views. Ask Rosend our resident Jew.

I understand that Augustine might have brought it into Christian thinking. Yet, it existed prior to that time in the church. 

Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.  Even the Pagans have access to common grace. In other words, pagans used to pray and sing. They used to make offerings to their superiors. They had priests.  

And families and governments.  I really don't see how whether the pagans introduced a concept into another religion reduces its effectiveness or even its validity. 

OF course, the Mormons and the JWs want to suggest that such introduction from pagan world somehow diluted Christianity. That's quite rich really given that both are considered outside of the church in today's world for many reasons. 


#4
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,512
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Another idea that I currently run with is residual energy/data.

Sort of ties in with simulation theory.
What do you mean? A kind of record of what happens in our reality?

Well, if we have to describe the universe in terms of systems we can say it works like a computer, and as any computer there should be a hard disk where everything is saved.

Our bodies work like this too, even at cell level (the DNA). The universe as a system should have a space where everything is recorded. This is not new, the ancient asian philosophies talk about that, they call it akashic records. I guess this is where psychics get their information (Edgar Cayce, for example).
Topic's author
#5
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting. I'm currently translating the first chapter of Genesis. Verse 2 which normally reads something like: "The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters." I have translated as: "At that time the earth was a dark and barren desolation; and God's dynamic energy was concentrated on the surface of the primeval ocean." Dynamic energy. 

I think the only simulation reality, though, is the one we create. Deus ex machina. 
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
@RaymondSheen
Thoughts.


Over a life time, does the mass produce more than the sum of it's constituent parts?

Do we add anything to a Universe?


The Earth was formed and periods of darkness and light fell upon it's surface.

Deus ex machina, the click of the magicians fingers, the naive hypothesis, the quick fix.


So we've add several thousand more years of thought to the matrix.

And may continue to do so.

As may others perhaps.
Topic's author
#7
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
There is a difference between Jewish (or any other) thought and tradition. Jews and Christians often disagree with me and that's fine, I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but Jewish tradition is as corrupted as any other and that naturally skewers their thinking and education. Their schooling and learning on the subject aren't tenable from the start. If anyone disagrees with the immortal soul as unscriptural all they have to do is misinterpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28. It's pretty straight forward. Then they have to deny the historical documentation of the pagan influence.

The church was apostate, as Paul and others warned in the Bible. That's only natural. Just look at the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish objection to me tends, oddly, to be more cerebral; linguistic, whereas Christian objection to me is more emotional.

Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.
No. Pagan means outside of. Baptism, tombstones, wedding rings, windchimes and many of the tenets of the Bible writers were first written about and practiced by the "pagans." The Bible is the source, not the church. I myself am outside the church because the church has become corrupt. Their teachings aren't in line with the Bible.

17 days later

#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
There is a difference between Jewish (or any other) thought and tradition. Jews and Christians often disagree with me and that's fine, I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but Jewish tradition is as corrupted as any other and that naturally skewers their thinking and education. Their schooling and learning on the subject aren't tenable from the start. If anyone disagrees with the immortal soul as unscriptural all they have to do is misinterpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28. It's pretty straight forward. Then they have to deny the historical documentation of the pagan influence. 
Wow! People disagree with you. How fascinating. I wonder why? I think your thoughts are corrupted as anyone else. Jewish Thinking though at least initially and as understood in the OT, was high level. And that's because it's laws, philosophies, and morality and ethics were raised on God's Words. The 10 Commandments indeed were the very words of God, written with his own hand. 

The Immortal soul is a Greek concept. It's not Biblical. 

The church was apostate, as Paul and others warned in the Bible. That's only natural. Just look at the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish objection to me tends, oddly, to be more cerebral; linguistic, whereas Christian objection to me is more emotional.
Says you. Yet the Church is interestingly enough described in two metaphorical forms which make me disagree with you. Firstly, the church is the Bride of Christ. I am not going to have a go at the Bride of Christ. How incredibly naive of me to suggest that the Bride of Christ is immoral. Insulting. And I suggest dangerous.  I know that if someone insulted my wife, I wouldn't take it very well.

Secondly, the church is described as the Body of Christ. This too would mean is important. And a very dangerous thing to have a go at Christ himself. He is the head. And if the church has gone haywire - or as you put it - Apostate, then that is well, a really big insult at the head of the church. 

So by suggesting the church is apostate, you insult - the Bride of Christ and Christ himself. Not a very smart thing if you believe in God. 


Yet what you don't seem to acknowledge is that perhaps the immortal soul was something that God intentionally brought into the church, even using the pagan religions to introduce it.
No. Pagan means outside of. Baptism, tombstones, wedding rings, windchimes and many of the tenets of the Bible writers were first written about and practiced by the "pagans." The Bible is the source, not the church. I myself am outside the church because the church has become corrupt. Their teachings aren't in line with the Bible.
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though. I suspect your teachings are not in line with the Bible either. 
Topic's author
#9
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The Immortal soul is a Greek concept. It's not Biblical. 
That's what I said. 

Says you.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Timothy 4:3

Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though.
"And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” Mark 1:9-10 The Greek word baptisma means to immerse, from the verb bapto meaning dip. The Septuagint, for example, uses the word at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.


#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though.
"And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” Mark 1:9-10 
Please articulate you think this phrase means submersion and for instance the exact same phrase in Acts 8:38-39 doesn't means submersion. The only way you can argue it means submersion is if you also argue that both Philip and the Eithopian both submerged each other. 


The Greek word baptisma means to immerse, from the verb bapto meaning dip. The Septuagint, for example, uses the word at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.
I know what the words means. But immerse doesn't necessarily mean submerge. There are two different words here. And there is ANOTHER Greek Word for Submerge.  In fact in the passage you referred to above - Mark 1:8 uses the words baptism in two different ways. With water and with the Spirit.  Are there two different modes being referred to here. After all, people are not baptised into the Holy Spirit. Rather the Spirt as it says in verses 9 and 10 shows that the Spirit came upon Jesus. Not Jesus went into the Spirit. Similarly at Pentecost, the Spirit rested on them - as tongues of fire. That is a mode - that Most Christians use. A pouring out - a sprinkling indeed. We are baptised with water. Not into water. 
Topic's author
#11
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Let's clarify. My position on Christian baptism is that it involves full immersion and your position is specifically that it isn't, meaning sprinkled with water, correct? 
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Let's clarify. My position on Christian baptism is that it involves full immersion and your position is specifically that it isn't, meaning sprinkled with water, correct? 
Your position is SUBMERSION.  The fact that you qualify immersion by putting the word "full" in front demonstrates that even you understand that immersion can mean different things. My position is that the Bible teaches aspersion.  In other words, you say the body is applied to the element. I say the element is applied to the body. 

We are baptised with water. We are baptised with the Spirit.  You say - the body is applied to water.  I'm not sure how you understand baptism in relation to the Spirit. One might assume it is the same. Yet, most are inconsistent when it comes to the mode.  Many charismatics would say - be baptised with the Spirit or by the Spirit rather than baptised in the Spirit. 

Romans 6 doesn't really help your position since the context is talking about sanctification as opposed to regeneration and it is specifically in relation to the union of Christ with the believer. 

Still, I hope that clarifies. 


9 days later

#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
The JWs are proved wrong because they falsely hold to the idea that baptism is SUBMERSION without any evidence to support it. 
Topic's author
#14
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret

I disagree. From the Watchtower Library, Baptism: Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 

Complete Immersion. From the definition of baptism as stated earlier, it is clear that baptism is complete immersion or submersion in water, not a mere pouring or sprinkling. The Bible examples of baptism corroborate this fact. Jesus was baptized in a sizable river, the Jordan, and after being baptized he came “up out of the water.” (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:13, 16) John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23) The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.
Historical sources show that the early Christians baptized by immersion. On this subject the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Larousse du XXe Siècle, Paris, 1928, says: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.”
Your definition of baptism doesn't seem to comport with scripture. That means it comes from somewhere else. Personally, and I may be wrong about this, I don't think the technique is a terribly significant issue, as far as debate goes, but I would look to the scripture when contemplating the way it was done in Jesus's time. 
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
I disagree. From the Watchtower Library, Baptism: Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 

Complete Immersion. From the definition of baptism as stated earlier, it is clear that baptism is complete immersion or submersion in water, not a mere pouring or sprinkling. The Bible examples of baptism corroborate this fact. Jesus was baptized in a sizable river, the Jordan, and after being baptized he came “up out of the water.” (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:13, 16) John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23) The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.
Historical sources show that the early Christians baptized by immersion. On this subject the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Larousse du XXe Siècle, Paris, 1928, says: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.”
Your definition of baptism doesn't seem to comport with scripture. That means it comes from somewhere else. Personally, and I may be wrong about this, I don't think the technique is a terribly significant issue, as far as debate goes, but I would look to the scripture when contemplating the way it was done in Jesus's time. 
So let's see. 

You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work. 

There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever. 

Jesus was baptised in the Jordan. This doesn't mean he was submerged. In fact the evidence is against that misunderstanding. John baptised around lots of water. How can that be evidence of submersion? He was expecting to baptise lots of people. It stands to reason he needed lots of water. And this would be the case whether submersion or sprinkling or pouring. Saying there was lots of water is simply unhelpful in this discussion and misses the point.  

Have you ever been to Bangladesh? Or to a middle Eastern country? Bangladesh has lots of rivers. And lots of people bathe in them everyday. Some jump right in - that what's the kids do. But if you watch most of the adults, they simply wade into their ankles or sometimes their waste. And that's it. No further. Lots of water, having a river, doesn't prove submersion. 

Your example of Philip is telling.  I mentioned this before but I can see it went right over your head, no pun intended.  They both went down into the water and they both came up from the water.  Did they both baptise each other? Is that what you are saying? 

Baptism doesn't symbolise burial. It doesn't. Baptism symbolises the coming of the Holy Spirit.  It is the uniting of Christ with the believer. Romans and Colossians don't even mention water. And besides Jesus wasn't buried in the ground. He was laid in a rock cave. 

What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question? 
Topic's author
#16
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work. 
The Watchtower I don't always agree with, besides that they, you and I are not infallible. What I use is the Bible accounts mentioned where the baptized came up out of the water. 

There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever. 
I gave them. 

What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question? 
Public declaration.

#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work. 
The Watchtower I don't always agree with, besides that they, you and I are not infallible. What I use is the Bible accounts mentioned where the baptized came up out of the water. 
Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.  

In relation to the biblical accounts mentioned by you, none were in relation to submersion, were they? Saying people went into the water and came up doesn't signify submersion.  Even if you read the words, it has a pattern,   they go down into the water, are baptised, and then come up from the water. I wonder if you noticed the three step process.  Submersion if it means "going down under and coming up from beneath" doesn't require this three step process. That's the beauty of language here. It demonstrates that baptism is neither the going down or the coming up. Baptism is the water ceremony that is practised in the NT in some of these accounts that is within those two steps.

Of course, on the day of Pentecost, there was no river or large containers that people went to be baptised. Yet 3000 were baptised according to Acts 2:41. The interesting thing is water is not even mentioned. There are no rivers in the town. The other interesting thing about that day is: how do you baptise 3000 people in one day? There were 12 apostles. What time did they start and when did they finish? How much time was devoted to each baptism? Did the disciples ever take a break? 

there's a much easier understanding of how it happened, than the very unlikely and almost impossible idea that each one was submerged, and that is that the disciples followed the ordinary manner by which the Levites anointed or baptised people - established in the OT. 


There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever. 
I gave them. 
No, you gave nothing of the sort.  Don't tell me that people going into the water and coming up from the water means submersion. It doesn't mean that. Don't lie to yourself. 


What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question? 
Public declaration.
???? firstly, where do you get that from? Secondly my question is - not what is it for, but which example of baptism in the NT is the most valuable for Christians when it comes to the mode and the meaning?
Topic's author
#18
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.  
Indeed. Because I have and I will never belong to any religion or political group. I'm not a JW, Christian or Jew. Democrat or Republican. Never have been. Never will be.  

Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.  

In relation to the biblical accounts mentioned by you, none were in relation to submersion, were they?
I believe they were. 

 Saying people went into the water and came up doesn't signify submersion.
Okay. If you believe that it says otherwise, that they had to go into the water to do whatever it is that you think they do, that's your belief. I really don't care. 


Topic's author
#19
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
That last post didn't come out like I meant it to. What I mean by not caring is that I don't think it is an issue. I originally only mentioned it in passing. We disagree on how it was done, but I just don't see it as being a matter of importance. 
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
@RaymondSheen
I would suggest that baptism is simply a social club ritual, usually backed up, or preceded by, a  more extensive period of brain washing.

Which to be fair is how all social systems are established and maintained.

Systems we variously refer to as religious, political, racial, cultural etc. etc.

Probably based upon an age old familiarity and safety in numbers thing.
Topic's author
#21
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that when modern man evaluates the past, especially religion, their explanation only demonstrates their arrogance and ignorance.  
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
True.

We can only work with available data.


And I'm guessing that arrogance is simply a derivation of a defensive response.

11 days later

#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that baptism is simply a social club ritual, usually backed up, or preceded by, a  more extensive period of brain washing.

Which to be fair is how all social systems are established and maintained.

Systems we variously refer to as religious, political, racial, cultural etc. etc.

Probably based upon an age old familiarity and safety in numbers thing.
Okay. 

Baptism is simply the bringing the child into the home by covenant.  Everyone either has a wet baptism or a dry one.  Once the child is named, they are therein part and parcel of that home until an intervening event. 

In Christianity, we acknowledge the reality of the family in society but we also recognise the reality of God. Hence, despite believing in the separation of church and family, like many do the separation of church and state, we don't believe in the separation of the person to God. 

Is it brainwashing? whatever? That's just a silly argument. Though to be fair, your next sentence qualifies your comment. 

It's not based on numbers or safety, it is based on "doing what is right".  

Still thanks for entering the discussion. I trust you have a good day. 
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Doing what is right.

Doing what is assumed to be right relative to a collective idea of righteousness.

Therefore a social club ritual that has meaning within the context of the social collective ideology.

Whether that be a pagan ideology or a popular Middle Eastern ideology, or any other collective ideology.

As such, baptism/initiation rituals can be extremely variable.
#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Doing what is right.
yes, great concept. Of course, but what does that mean?


Doing what is assumed to be right relative to a collective idea of righteousness.
Hence your next question - and a sensible one too. 

although why a collective idea of righteousness amounts to any more authority is a different question. 


Therefore a social club ritual that has meaning within the context of the social collective ideology.

Whether that be a pagan ideology or a popular Middle Eastern ideology, or any other collective ideology.

As such, baptism/initiation rituals can be extremely variable.
 
I don't care about baptism in any other situation or circumstance or religion. It is a religious ceremony. I take the view - arrogant as it seems that Christianity is right - rite. 
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I take the view.
Undoubtedly.


Data management preferences.


I currently prefer to not make such an unverifiable decision.

And given the unlikelihood of such data becoming verifiable, I expect that my preference will remain unchanged.

60 days later

#27
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@RaymondSheen
I would suggest that when modern man evaluates the past, especially religion, their explanation only demonstrates their arrogance and ignorance. 
The best rational xplanation comes from Hinduism.
Hindus believe in the doctrines of samsara (the continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation) and karma (the universal law of cause and effect).
One of the key thoughts of Hinduism is “atman,” or the belief in soul. This philosophy holds that living creatures have a soul, and they’re all part of the supreme soul. The goal is to achieve “moksha,” or salvation, which ends the cycle of rebirths to become part of the absolute soul.