First, apologies for the many following typos…tying this on a tablt (很麻煩)
This is not only factually inaccurate, it shows you didn’t read my post. For points 1 and 3, I provided about a dozen standard reference sources. You didn’t provide a single item of scholarly literature which contradicted anything they said. In fact you didn’t cite a word of scholarship in response to any of them. The only scholarship you cited was in response to the quotation by Hebblethwaite, you didn’t respond with any scholarship in reply to any of the standard reference sources.[/quote]
Look back, you only gave one reference. You keep compounding issues. You clearly do not even have a grasp of what we are talking about. Maybe next post you will say you provided evidence that ramen noodles are yummy, I dunno.
You quote mined yourself. Out of an ENTIRE book you gave about a paragraph, nice try. I have noticed, you have provided no other quotes for the majority of contemporary Christian theologians not believing in a soul.
Not
a
sinlge
other
reference
except the really crappy biased one. WHY??? Because you can find no others.
If you want, keep compounding issues in your ignorance (ie the doctrine not appearing in the NT…therefore modern theologians have revised classical Christian theology and have, in light of contemporary scholarship, rejected the idea of an immortal soul) but NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE regarding the notion of the soul claims that…they only keep talking about the doctrine not being in the NT.
You, in your biased, revisionist (peculiar) Christian theology which you hold so dear, have commited the great sin of letting your own believs color your perception.
YOU may have revised your own notions of Christianity in light of contemporary scholarship, but the MAJORITY of Christians in the US have not. Unles you can provide another reference except for the biased book which was not well accepted by the scholarly community…I guess we are just going to go back and forth as you try to equate the lack of a soul in the NT to a lack of this doctrine in contemporary Christianity.
However, the fact that (except for the crap quote) you cannot supply A SINGLE reference (even amidst you how many years of the SBL journal???) that states the notion of an immortal soul is actually a minority opinion amongst contemporary Christiantheologians shows how full of hot air your assertion is.
This is your belief, you have that right, but your Christian belief about the lack of an immortal soul is the minority (get over it).
[quote]If you want to support your claim that these articles support the doctrine of the immortal soul despite the fact that they acknowledge the doctrine is not native to either Judaism or Christianity, you have to provide evidence for it.
[/quote]
Your lack of understanding as to how the study of religion happens is quite breathtaking, like the grandcanyon.
I never said those references SUPPORTED the notion of a soul (therefore, no need to cite a reference for something I actually never asserted…).
Guess you missed when I clarified this point last time…
SCHOLARS ON SOUL IN NT=not there
SCHOLARS ON EXISTENCE OF SOUL=???
They say nothing about the second, only the first. They neither confirm nor deny the existence of the soul; merely state it was originally a Greek idea.
Perhaps they are (unlike you) unbiased about their belief in the soul and therefore did not try to push it (either way).
You are jumping to conclusions, based on your own beliefs and partly on the scholarship.
Again, the scholarship is silent on whether or ot a soul exists.
If you really do not get this (since you want to assert your own revisionist Christian interpretation) well then, so be it.