So, yes, the idea of an immortal soul is supported by the Bible, even if we aren't told, "This is what a 'soul' is".
No, you're wrong here. This is exactly what I meant with the difference between popular theology and the actual content of the scriptures. But hey be my guest and believe whatever you want or whatever your local churchleader commands you
Easy there, mate. I rarely take the minister's word as gospel until I've looked in my Bible myself. Generally during a sermon most of the congregation has their Bibles open in front of them, following along. I'm not saying "immortal soul is supported by the Bible" just because I have been told so. You suggested I look into it, and I did.
Here's a fairly well-known one:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish
but have eternal life." John 3:16
Also:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50
The concept of everlasting life is referenced a lot in the New Testament
The New Testament is the Greek Testament, the second major division of the bible. You should brush up your knowledge about it's history and what structural supersessionism means... as this exactly proves my point!
Yes, the New Testament is the "Greek Testament", because it was originally written in Greek. What's wrong with that? That certainly doesn't impose "ancient Greek philosphy" on it, although the possibility is there. You're implying that nothing in the New Testament is of worth unless it is already in the Old Testament. Wouldn't that make the New Testament redundant?
You can't tell me that I won't find what I'm looking for in Christian Scripture, and then when I find it tell me it's useless because it's in the wrong half.
Jibb
