It was written in Greek because it came from the Eastern Roman empire, an area that tried hard to become as 'Greek' as possible when it comes to many things, not just Greek philosophy. Oh and at that time it wasn't actually ancient philosophy, but what they believed in back then. Hence that link there really is pretty obvious.
Like I already said, such a link provides an opportunity for the New Testament to be tainted that way, but neither makes it certain nor probable. Many of the letters admonish those converts who attempt to hold on to parts of their former religions.
This clearly refers to the afterlife and potentially speaks about heaven, not the 'soul'. That's simply a big stretch of what I would consider the most common interpretation.
Wow. How can one have an eternal afterlife
and a dying body if there's no more to them than physical interactions? Really, I'd love to know. Before you point to Buddhism's concept of "rebirth" -- despite having no concept of soul, one is connected from one life to the next by their karma. Hindus have a somewhat similar concept to us of a soul -- an "atman" that connects their reincarnations. I'd love to hear how one can look at Christianity's eternal life
and a physical death, and not see their being more to us than the physical.
This is typical rally speech for the oppressed to be honest and should be seen in a context of exaggeration and soul here could very well just mean 'hope'.
I'm not saying it doesn't mention the word soul here, but I do think it's pretty obvious from the context that it's not very specific about what 'soul' means here.
An exaggeration of what? What could it possibly mean? Even an over-the-top pep-talk has some sort of meaning. I'm sure we can agree to disagree in this situation, but you must be able to admit that replacing "soul" with "hope" is a stretch, and the fact that that's your best conclusion is indicative of a biased interpretation. That verse could very easily be literal, and fits with everything else.
You're not going to admit this and you don't have to, but all you've really found are your own interpretations. I don't want to sound arrogant here, but in a way this is exactly what I had predicted.
It's easy to say those are my "own interpretations". But as I pointed out above, it's easy to see your own interpretations of what I found are a stretch.
If you actually had a good look for yourself, you'd realise that it isn't that open to interpretation. Instead, you give the impression that you have read some secular studies and articles on Christianity and taken
their word for it.
It's the difference between popular theology and the actual scriptures.
I rarely take the minister's word as gospel until I've looked in my Bible myself.
I seriously doubt that.
You're just imposing your own view on me. I'm not here to lie.
Jibb
