Do We Have a Soul?

[@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw]

Gregory of Tours who was a bishop in what became France in the 6th century, CE, wrote in his "History of the Franks", that one of his young priests questioned him about precisely the problem of the resurrection of the body. The young priest had a problem with what Dr. Ehrman said. If you're buried at sea and your body gets eaten by fish which are eaten by other fish or humans, how can your "body" be resurrected if it's been dispersed via so many digestive systems etc. Bishop Gregory merely wrote "I soon put him right, and he went away agreeing with my point of view", or words to that effect. I can imagine he did. Something like : this is our doctrine. You're a priest and that's all you know. It's a nice cushy life in a great cathedral, with full meals, clothing, bed and board etc. You just need to toe the line. If you don't like it, there's the door. Good luck surviving on the street with no skills whatsoever. Amen. That's not actually in the book. It's " between the lines", if you know what I mean, but it's very persuasive.

[@thealmightyaku-4153]

Only somewhat related, I suppose, but your comment reminded me of something learned recently from a podcast on the subject: the deathbed confession of atheism, of non-belief, by a medieval bishop. As related by the people telling the details, he refused the Last Rites, saying basically "Don't bother me with that, I don't believe in that stuff." Those in attendance were shocked. "But you are a bishop!? How can you say you don't believe? If you don't believe, why are you a bishop, why did you become a priest?" And he admitted: "I joined the Church, and climbed it ranks, for the power and the money it brought me."

[@nuynobi]

@@thealmightyaku-4153 Well of course! Once they start climbing the ranks, they're essentially politicians at that point. And how many politicians actually believe in what they're saying? Not many.

[@LukasOfTheLight]

I don't believe in the resurrection, but this critique seems a dead-end to me. God is supposed to be omnipotent, it would be as trivial as making soup for Him to bring the bodies back. Rather than internal contradiction, the only response to literalist religious doctrine is to point to the lack of natural evidence and the simple lack of good reason to engage with the whole system in the first place.

[@dianadeejarvis7074]

Oh, come on. Maybe Gregory just sternly informed him that the God who created the world should be able to recreate a body no matter how scattered or decomposed it is.

[@jakobstisen6366]

@@dianadeejarvis7074 Yes, that does seem like many would say. Any problem, God can just fix it, also why would he not just be able to do so. Plot holes are for God to fix, to any question. In itself it works. Another fun one, if he said: in time you will understand why its wrong, then walks away :-). I think my first real question, was about the couple that died in the new testament, I asked about it and why they died when no one else dies by God in the new testament, and they said we can talk about later, there was no later, but I did not think much about it.

[@markadams7046]

One thing that always seemed obvious to me is that in the bible there is nothing that says the moment one dies that person immediately goes to heaven or hell. Yet, when I attend many funerals I'll hear Christians say, "they are with Jesus in heaven now." All that I've read in the bible is that it is a future time when the dead will be raised.

[@sirrevzalot]

Christians (like my dad) will point to the crucifixion scene where Jesus tells the criminal being executed beside him “Today you will be with me in paradise.” From this one utterance, seemingly, an entire doctrine of “To be absent from the body is to be present with the lord.”

[@Potaters12]

This is for the most part true, but there are areas where it is either explicitly or heavily inferred that upon death you have some kind of immediate reward or placement in heaven. In Revelation the souls of the martyrs are shown to be in heaven while they await the final resurrection (Revelation 6:9-11) and then Paul himself says in Philippians 1:23 that when he departs he will "be with Christ" suggesting some kind of immediacy. Famously Jesus says in Luke to the thief on the cross that "today you will be with me in paradise." As you're probably aware, the mainline Christian belief to this day is that the soul goes to heaven on death where it awaits the reuniting with the body at the last day. After reading Bart's book "Heaven and Hell," it's pretty apparent to me that in the early days Christians had a variety of beliefs on this topic and as such the Biblical account features several understandings. I do think you're right in observing that the most prominent understanding is the very Hebraic one: when you die you simply "die" until you are resurrected at the judgement without all that Platonic stuff about the soul. As Christianity expands more and more throughout the Greek world, the soul starts creeping into the conversation by way of cultural diffusion.

[@ou812invu6]

@@sirrevzalot But what you're saying only proves a contradiction. "When Jesus returns, the dead in Christ will rise first; and then those still living will meet them and Jesus in the air…" 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

[@ou812invu6]

@@Potaters12 That might not be the "most proiminent understanding". But it seems apparent that the Bible contradicts itself in that respect. And most Christians simply don't seem to notice or care. When Jesus returns, the dead in Christ will rise first; and then those still living will meet them and Jesus in the air… 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

[@Bebopeep]

The only scripture that alludes to this would most likely be the one where Paul says “ To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ” otherwise, no clue where they get most of their ideas from?

[@arthurmartinson4370]

Megan: I spent 3 weeks in Peterborough for my work back in 2004. It only rained 1 day, and the entire time there was gorgeous! The lake and gardens by the Butterfly Hotel were SO fantastic. Sigh.

[@bradfordlane4129]

This was fantastic! Keep doing this! Together. 😊

[@welcometonebalia]

I got no soul, but I heard James Brown claim he did. (Thank you.)

[@sabineb.5616]

Well, I think that James Brown told the truth, and it was very nice to listen to his soul - although personally I prefer Aretha Franklin's soul 😉 And as long as there are people who listen to their soul, it's not dead. I believe that all living beings with a certain degree of consciousness have a soul. Maybe, having a soul means to be aware of one's existence and being able to experience joy but also misery. This is pretty close to what we call consciousness - and unfortunately we still don't know what consciousness is, how it developed and if consciousness is tied to biological bodies or if advanced artificial intelligent entities could also develop consciousness - or a soul. All that said, right now I don't believe in immortal souls. But who knows? As I get older, my belief system evolves constantly.

[@Chris_The_Humanist]

I got soul, but I’m not a soldier.

[@sabineb.5616]

@@Chris_The_Humanist 😉

[@joejohnson6327]

Sometimes I feel so nice, good Lord! I jump back, I wanna kiss myself!

[@justmenotyou3151]

​@@joejohnson6327Careful of liplock. That could be a problem.

[@amykrier2851]

I signed up for the fascinating Quran/Bible discussion, man... I hope you guys are taking precautions. This is very much needed information, but, wow, brave!!

[@davidk7529]

Me too, as soon as I heard about it!! Time to think hard about what kinds of questions I might have and how to phrase one if I ask it 🤔 I hope they also recommend some advance prep content on the Quran for those of us who are still mostly familiar with just the Bible, to help us get an even clearer understanding during the course itself.

[@amykrier2851]

@davidk7529 Good point! Write down good questions...I already have some. THEN hope for no backlash. Remember Salman Rushdie? No one wants that. The Harvard scholar mentioned it, but I know that I can't spell it...When you have offended the Islamic powers that be, like spoken against them sacrilegiously, and an "okay, it's acceptable to kill him" is stated. So, they put a hit on you. Eeeekkk

[@hereigoagain5050]

As a recovering Catholic, I was always confounded that the soul was rewarded or punished for acts that the soul did not control.

[@marksandsmith6778]

Add logic and Clean away the Vatican stain Well done.😊

[@davidmarsh5274]

Another fine, informative episode. Thank you Bart for sharing your knowledge and understanding with us and thank you Megan for your excellent questions to Bart.

[@briancallahan7266]

No one at a funeral ever says "i know they are down there now screaming up at us!"

[@davidk7529]

There might be some, occasionally 🤔 I know my dad wouldn’t be the least bit ashamed to talk like that if I died before him

[@darksaurian6410]

i do

[@Lleanlleawrg]

Classic Carlin joke. But kinda true.

[@peterkerj7357]

Highway to Hell is said to be one of the most popular songs at Australian funerals.

[@briancallahan7266]

I get my religious information from Bart erman and George carlin so I'm a well rounded athiest

[@qadirtimerghazin]

Really sorry to be off topic, but whoever Megan’s hairdresser is, that’s an amazing job

[@cisco9t5-y9e]

Many hair styles many glasses.

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Thank you, I do it myself!

[@majafleur9646]

Agreed, best look yet!

[@majafleur9646]

​​​@@DigitalHammurabiI would die to know that lipstick shade. What a glamorous combination this whole look is!

[@karenbehymer3634]

YES!!!!! Megan's hair looks really lovely!!!

[@DMoneys36]

anybody else love their small talk at the beginning? so cute to listen to them

[@ingvaraberge7037]

No, I skiped those first 4 minutes. Wasted time and terribly boring to listen to.

[@MossyMozart]

@@ingvaraberge7037 - I like hearing them communicate about their lives. It really humanizes them to me.

[@LukasOfTheLight]

Same here. It's lovely to see two polite, platonic, respectful people talk so easily.

[@davidk7529]

I listen to every single episode, and I love hearing about their real lives alongside the topics of their work. I don’t get why anyone would think negatively about that part being included… They don’t owe us any of this content, and they are people too. I know small talk helps loosen me up for serious discussions as much as it does for them. It’s not excessive or contrived, it’s genuine and takes just the right amount of time. It also helps me understand how they relate to their work in terms of their own daily life, which is very meaningful to me in the process of understanding their explanations.

[@ingvaraberge7037]

And by the way, the topic of this episode is not "do we have a soul?", but rather "do body and soul separate when we die?"

[@robbabcock_]

Thanks for another wonderful discussion!

[@justinholoviak5357]

It was a peaceful observation and a salute to historical/sociological etc…. Lenses and openness

[@jimwarrong]

Something for a future discussion: most of us even those who have no traditional 'faith' still enjoy hymns. However many hymns such as my favourite "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind.." have little connection with Christian beliefs. And there are many such. Has anyone ever studied this disconnect between liturgy and the official dogmas of the churches?

[@konstantinoskazantzis3893]

Thank you my dear friends it make sense to me good on you both love down under Australian

[@SeekingTruth2023]

May I ask... Adam was made alive (a living soul) by receiving the breath of God. When he sinned, the breath of God left him (so he returned to being mere flesh). But physically he lived on for a long time. How can that be? Wouldn't he be a human without soul then? And the Bible, at least the NT as far as I know, speaks of body, spirit and soul. So the body I understand, and then there is the spirit of God (this might be the breath of God?) And then Adam has his inner person(ality). These three. Is this something that changed from the AT to the NT? Sorry, I am not a native speaker, I try to understand the video in its entirety... Dear Bart and Meghan, thank you so much for this episode!!

[@davidk7529]

I’d like to know this too. Maybe try submitting the question for the next episode?

[@edafematthew8406]

Where do we get the idea that when adam sinned the breath of life left him?

[@SeekingTruth2023]

@@edafematthew8406 I am not a scholar, so I only write what I have understood. According to the Bible, God created man from dust, and breathes into him the breath of life, and man becomes a living soul with/through this breath of God. When Adam sins, God says he will return to the dust. What made Adam a living soul? God's breath of life. When he now says that Adam will return to dust, it means that God's breath of life is no longer with Adam. Gen 2,7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Gen 3,19 "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” My knowledge is tentative. I am open to your opinion. All the best to you.

[@edafematthew8406]

@@SeekingTruth2023 I think where we differ in opinion is when the breath of life leaves him... Is it at death or immediately he sinned or was caused? It is more logical that when a person dies , the body returns to the dust and the breath of life returns back to God

[@SeekingTruth2023]

I have also asked myself this question. It is a valid question. If I understood Dr. Ehrmann correctly, the view of the Jews at the time was that God formed the body out of dust, and it was lifeless. When God then blew the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, Adam became a living soul. Thus, the body and the breath of life (or soul) did not exist independently of each other. Without the breath, man was dead. Because he did not breathe. Hence my initial question. Because according to the Bible, Adam lived for a very long time outside of paradise, even though he was cursed by God.​@@edafematthew8406

[@AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen]

👏🙂 Awesome episode as always

[@susiepittman601]

Thank you so much. His knowledge is really helpful to me.

[@alanmonday801]

Megan would love the Pacific Northwest and the rainy gray climate

[@DrustZapat]

I really struggle to understand why Paul has any authority at all. Like this guy persecuted Christians, he would’ve been considered a Greek-speaking foreigner to Jesus and his disciples, he never met Jesus during his lifetime, and somehow his letters take up most of the New Testament. Meanwhile, James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, someone who spoke Jesus’ language and actually followed him in his lifetime, are both relegated as afterthoughts to the bulk of modern Christian philosophy and theology. Like…how? The best answer I can come up with is his teachings have been the most convenient to structure the church’s power around. Is that really all?!

[@Spinozasghost]

I'm at a loss for this as well, especially given the humanism of James's letter. Imagine a church that had been built around his "faith without works is dead" as opposed to Paul's insistence on the sufficiency of mere belief (at least, how many interpret him, which becomes an excuse for moral laziness).

[@exaucemayunga22]

I guess he was a more charismatic speaker, just like today's mega church pastors.

[@sebolddaniel]

Sounds ridiculous to say that Jesus told me that gentiles don't have to follow dietary laws and circumcisions. "Hey, Paul. By the way...." What a con man.

[@Kaddywompous]

You and me both.

[@montagdp]

I wouldn't say it like there was some sort of intentional power play involved, at least not back in the first century. Paul simply marketed the version of Christianity that appealed to the widest audience (Gentiles specifically), so it became dominant. Think of it as an evolutionary process. If Christianity had remained just a sect of Judaism, it would have died out like so many others. Paul's salvation without the Jewish law gave it worldwide scope.

[@leedoss6905]

50F at night and no more the 75 in the daytime and I'm happy. I frigging hate living in Texas and I was born here.

[@rafalapolanski]

Loving the subject, even though I subscribe to an old sarcastic view that there are far more interesting personalities down there, where it is warmer :)

[@geosko13]

Thank you both for the great podcast. One comment; as a native Greek speaking I would like to point out that: “pneuma” is pronounced in Greek as “pnevma” not “penuma”.

[@baldeagle-cq2jl]

Dr.Ehrman always brings wit to his reasoning along with some chuckles. He truly enjoys what he researches. Megan is a complimentary host. Asks the question and lets Bart speak.

[@spiritofMongan]

oh goodie, a voice of reason. Cant wait to get into this.

[@bowhunter3703]

As usual, Dr. Ehrman shows his deep knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament and the Gospels. I have a PhD in an engineering field. The best explanation of what a soul is, was offered by a Moslem engineer in my group. His explanation is that humans are like a mobile phone. You need a memory card to function which is the brain of the system but you also you also need a 5G connection. That 5G connection is your soul. If the hardware or the connection get interrupted, then the person ceases to function and dies. I am also looking forward to listening to Dr. Javad lecture on Islam. I have a hobby of studying religions and I studied Islam extensively to find out that Arabic is a very complex language, and it is not enough to speak it but you need to understand its old forms. More importantly, you need to separate Moslem practices from the Quran because in many ways, there is a contradiction. Moslems tend to justify a lot of their practices and the myth in Islam by saying it is from the hadith (the body of saying from the prophet). It is amazing how many of these hadith contradict the Quran and there are a lot of bad blood between some new scholars and the Salafies (Orthodox Moslems) on youtube. Regardless, this is all fun and I enjoy it much more than my engineering career, but I need the money.

[@davidk7529]

*Muslim (Apparently the other spelling has its own reasoning, but also carries other connotations and is best avoided in favor of the current standard spelling)

[@CeramicShot]

Making analogies like the 5G/memory card thing offers zero evidence though, doesn't it? It's an unsupported claim. I feel like so many people are way too impressed with novel metaphors that they suspend their critical faculties. Why would consciousness continue after the death of the brain? "Because there is a 5G-like connection to something that exists eternally" is pure unsupported nonsense just like any other superstition, isn't it?

[@nonyobussiness3440]

Nah in the Old Testament we are a living “soul”. 5G plus memory card plus phone is a soul. Soul is not separate from body and needs Gods breath or spirit to be “alive” and a soul. They lacked the Greek idea of soul

[@marksandsmith6778]

Trash.

[@MrBevoRules]

The idea of this course is really interesting. I know many Christians who have a list of reasons that Muslims can't be right, without realizing Christianity can be refuted in the exact same way. I'm sure the same is true for many Muslims. Putting the two side by side might just help some people see this. And I'm sure there will be a ton of great info about both books.

[@stephanieparker1250]

I love the rain and the cool days here in Oregon 🥰🌦️🌲🌿

[@Jahson70]

Someone once said: _"We are not bodies with souls, rather, we are souls with bodies."_

[@ou812invu6]

Occam's razor suggests that there are no such thing as souls. There is no real evidence that such a thing actually exists. The only reason that people believe that souls exist is because (a) religous doctrines say so and (b) people want to believe it to be true. But consider this. Christians and Atheists alike share the common belief that all other animals on this earth are soul less creatures. For the sake of argument let's assume that they are both correct in that respect. It makes sense to assume so because we have no evidence (reason) to believe otherwise. And physiologically speaking, unlike other organs in the body that actually serve some necessary or useful function (e.g. heart, brain, reproductive organs), we can't really point to something like a soul in these creatires being necessary for them to live and function. And yet many of these are conscious creatures that are capable of sharing the same type of emotions that humans do, such as happiness and depression. Indeed you can even see it in their eyes. For example looking into the eyes of dogs that are being kept caged in a dog shelter. You've heard the expression "The eyes are a mirror of the soul". Well if that is the case then dogs and other conscious creatures must have souls do. But if we're going to dismiss such notions as that being evidence of souls for non-human creatures then we must do so for humans as well. If we conclude that souls don't exist for non-human creatures, and acknowledge that physioligically speaking there is not evidence for them existing or being vital/necessary for them to live and function, then Occam's razor suggests that barring any real evidence or reason yo believe otherwise, then we should no believe that souls exist or are somehow physiologically needed to humans to live and function the way that they do. Conversely if we were to ever determine that souls exist in all non-human creatures, then Occam's razor would suggest that they most likely exist in humans as well (unless we had real good reason to believe that they were somehow the exception. Truth be told the only thing that religous types have to offer to try and convince others that humans (and humans alone) have souls are religous beliefs such as "God made man in his own image".

[@marksandsmith6778]

That someone is a dimwit.

[@SeekingTruth2023]

Oh, and when it comes to Thomas touching Jesus's wounds.... why was he allowed to touch them? Jesus previously told Mary not to touch him. Why was Thomas allowed, and Mary was not.... I wonder... I am very grateful for answer. Thank you!

[@XaaviWillow]

Some legends say Thomas was Jesus' twin so maybe it was because Jesus wanted his brother to know he was okay.

[@edwardj3070]

He must have ascended to the Father and come back

[@SeekingTruth2023]

@edwardj3070 Thank you very much for your answer! That was actually my first thought too. I'm not an expert and find the Bible very difficult to understand. So if Jesus was resurrected and Mary saw him at the grave, Jesus told her not to touch him. However, a few days later he appeared to some disciples who were frightened and thought they were seeing a ghost. But Jesus asked them to touch his wounds. And he ate with them to show that he was not a ghost. Lk 24,39~ As far as I understand it, this was on the 16th of Nisan, shortly after the resurrection. Jesus then appears again to some of the disciples and Thomas is not present. 8 days later Jesus appears again, shows Thomas his wounds and asks him to touch them. Surely all this happened before his ascension into heaven, which took place on the 40th day (month of Iyar and no longer Nisan)? So Jesus would not have appeared to Mary or the disciples after his ascension. And some were allowed to touch him, but Mary was not. I am lost... 🫣 haha, that's what keeps me awake at night...

[@twistedlimb4053]

@@SeekingTruth2023 after his resurrection he went to the temple to present himself the wave offering of the first fruits. once he did that he could carry on as just an ordinary resurrected Savior.

[@edwardj3070]

@@SeekingTruth2023 doesn't the whole story strike you as incredibly strange that this is how the Almighty would appear to offer salvation to humanity? If salvation comes from believing in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, why make it such a doubtful mystery? Why appear to so few while alive, why not do a world tour? Why not show himself to millions, Keep coming back to show he's risen? Why the game of hide and seek? I mean it seems so obviously a myth that grew up after Jesus surprise arrest and execution. I've as spent the last few months studying Christianity and it's appallingly absurd. Not a nice religion at all. It's about hatred of humanity and no good person we would want to believe it IMO

[@Potaters12]

Love this. In the middle of reading Phaedo. Really fun to read Socrates (Plato) rationalizing the soul, but there are so many fallacies in his arguments no matter how witty they are. Still it is refreshing to see the concept logically broken down, rather than taken on faith.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Just as a matter of interest which exact Greek word translates as soul? The hillbilly is simply wrong at *no* point in the Jesussey does the hero speak of the resurrection of the*" body*". but then you can put any words you please into the mouth of a dead man that cannot contradict you. The poor hillbilly is plainly not playing with a full deck and is an idolater

[@PitboyHarmony1]

Followed this one carefully as my views have finally gone full circle and rested in realism. There is no soul, higher self, or any removed or separable existence beyond the carbon based corporeal animal we describe as self. I wanted to believe in an afterlife or transmutation of ethereal existence ... because its cool ... something to look forward to. That it all isnt just about being an ape with a prefrontal cortex and an amygdala that allows for poetry, music, creativity, abstract or learned mathematical or scientific thought resulting in astrophysics, Darwinian biology, or Mozart ... but that once we are done playing with all that for a lifetime, there was a next level game ... but there isnt. I spent 60 years in study, trying to find out the truth. Eventually I realized the real truth is the hardest of all, but its one that I can see. Theres not one shred of proof archeologically or definable by modern scientific experimentation or theoretical mathematics that even remotely suggests that there is anything but a light switch when we die. We are no different to the ant we unknowingly stepped on today, our protein dinner or the deer in the forest. They were alive ... then they were not, there is no more. 'near death experiences', and other experiences like this is not any form of proof, as they require the physical brain to determine and explain its own experience. Our brain is capable of coming up what it need to in a crisis to survive. It is a physical function of specific parts of the brain to do whatever it has to do to sustain itself, and more often that not these experiences follow our belief systems, or even possibly the knowledge of these beliefs inform the brain to create these experiences and memories ... that dont actually happen. We accept that our pet cat, and our chicken or beef meal and a planet full of wildlife (from insect to whale) has no afterlife ... but we wont extend that same inevitability to ourselves? We have to ask why? What is actually behind this present and ancient ideal that we have to believe in and want for a next stage in reality or evolution beyond this plane of existence ... an idea normally encapsulated in a religious ideology ... even if there are literally hundreds of very different viewpoints and expectations, dependent on the belief system we look at? How can they all be right when not one can actually be proven? This is a juxtaposition that just cant be reconciled. The argument that it doesnt need to be proven to be correct or real ... isnt an answer if you cant interweave what the entire world accepts as the scientific method without question. We accept the methodical definition of every question about our physical world and beyond, but then we leap beyond that to suggest that a soul or afterlife is just as concrete, just for ourselves ... but we have no proof. Why do we do this? Fear. That is all. Part of the human equation is to constantly be fearful of that which we dont know, therefore we are allowed to dream up comfort. Something to make us feel better, remove the panic, sidestep the reality that our eventual designation is one of being prey to the predator of time and death. Its too scary, too much to handle. It makes us feel better to imagine up some shtick of everlasting life. Helps us to get out of bed in the morning. Isnt it time that we all just let go of fear, and enjoy what we actually have without needing to dream up a fear hacking security blanket, like a soul or an afterlife or any religious based after death destination or act, wrapped up by beliefs created by terrified ancient people captured and driven by the same fear? We are smarter than that now.

[@MossyMozart]

@PitboyHarmony1 - I concur completely, though I would have said it in far less poetic words. We best enjoy our prefrontal cortex and amygdala while we are here.

[@josipag2185]

Love this episode, many thanks ❤

[@KaiHenningsen]

Of this city here, it is said that either it rains, or the church bells are ringing; or both, then it's Sunday. And yes, we have a bishop here.

[@A-nontheist1]

Wow, couldn't live there.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

3:00 hmm, as a Scot I've always preferred the heat to the cold. When I lived in Australia I rarely if ever thought it was TOO hot. It was the mosquitoes that were the main problem there! It just surprises me to think that british people generally are supposed to prefer the cold and the rain. It's news to me, especially when you see the keenness to jet off to the Mediterranean and spend the days covered in oil (not sunscreen) in the blasting hot sunshine!

[@DavidSmith-vr1nb]

Some of us must like the cold, if only for an excuse to complain. Did you come back to Scotland?

[@integrationalpolytheism]

@@DavidSmith-vr1nb I did. I have plenty of complaints about both countries actually, but really they're first world problems! Actually loads positive can be said about both countries too. There's something I like about Scotland in that everything isn't hundreds of miles away from everything else!

[@johnpro2847]

The fountain of youth is a huge industry...it will stay for a long time as people want it to be true.This is because we have a strong survival instinct.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

48:02 well according to Elaine Pagels, St Paul was gnostic, and I think it's generally agreed by many that gMark is quite Pauline, so how does it follow that you say there's no evidence of gnosticism until many decades after gMark? Do you just reject Pagels' work outright? It's not even worth mentioning or considering here?

[@brokinsage7138]

If the jews didnt believe in an afterlife, then what does the term Sheol mean, and what about the story of King Saul calling up the soul of Samuel for advice? If Jesus didn't believe in the soul, what is the meaning of the parable of the man who builds his house on the sand vs the man who builds his house on the rock?

[@Jeremiah-q9t]

The most interesting part of the new testament for me is what's talked about the least. And that's the group that actually ran the temple. Which was not the Pharisees. It was the zadducees. The zadducees RAN the temple. They didn't believe in an after life. What we do know is that there are old testament scriptures that say humans become dust again and are gone forever. On the flip side there is an old testament scripture that says all souls belong to God. It's fascinating.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

9:30 but didn't we hear last week what the difference is between the soul and the spirit? So why are we conflating them again this week?

[@williamfinucane]

As a Minnesotan, i love the weather conversation. Living in a place where it can be 105 F in the summer and -50 F in the winter is wild. This year we didn't get much of a winter, unfortunately

[@MossyMozart]

@williamfinucane - We didn't either here in the Hudson River Valley. Hardly any snow which always dismays the farmers in the family who depend on a slow melting of a snow pack to water the fields early one.

[@John-hg3zd]

Can we all agree that Bart Ehrman is a gift from God whether you believe in God or not? I learn so much from him and he is such a joy to listen to. What a phenomenal teacher. P.s. Megan is a great find, the perfect complement to Bart in this format

[@mohammedmaraee]

He's not a gift from anything...he's just a man who's able to think while isolating his biases, and take his research seriously and remember it well.

[@donaldtilley7562]

I'm with you, Bart. I'll take heat anytime over cold!

[@zbdbz]

Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it." Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it." Huike said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it." "There," Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."

[@MichaelYoder1961]

The book of Job - would love to see Dr. Josh participate in that conversation

[@davidk7529]

…Yes!

[@T-41]

Thanks, Dr. Ehrman. Man certainly has used his creative mind !

[@MadScientist72]

This is the most important subject with respect to all of the modern religions

[@simonbattle0001]

It was fun to watch two, educated, rational, logical people try to logically explain the illogical and the irrational..

[@johnmonk3381]

And funny too

[@nuggetoftruth-ericking7489]

This was interesting.

[@bearhills3379]

If the Hebrew scriptures teach that when the body and the soul are separated at death, both body and soul die, why then did they believe in a 3-tiered universe with an underworld? Doesn't seem to be a need for an "abode of the dead" if the soul has ceased to exist. What am I missing here? If the ancients believed the body goes into the ground as dead and the soul goes to Sheol as dead, and that the body decomposes and becomes dust, did they believe the dead soul also eventually rots?

[@myronmason8170]

This is what I said. It is CLEAR the ancient Israelites believed people could leave behind spirits or "shades" that descended into sheol. If we are to believe they believed the soul disappeared after death, then why have sheol? Why condemn necromancy? Why have passages that describes spirits being able to communicate from the dead?

[@johnbostrom8467]

Fantastic show. Wow.

[@jcr3208]

Legitimate question. If the ancient Jews did not believe in an afterlife like we do, can someone please explain 2 Samuel 12:23, when David says he will go to his dead son.

[@MrVeryfrost]

That means that David will die, too. He used poetic language, like modern "pass away" instead of blunt "to die". Why is this even a question? There you go, the legitimate answer to your legitimate question.

[@nonyobussiness3440]

Jews to this day don’t agree on or think about afterlife much. It’s cultural and religiously something they don’t focus on.

[@MossyMozart]

During my years as an RN, I witnessed many deaths and held the hands of those dying. Never once was there any sign of a soul departing a body; never a transfiguration; never a heavenly choir singing; never the appearance of long-dead relatives or a Jesus. It is the transition of the moment when a person has a light in their eyes to the moment where you see it go out.

[@nuynobi]

I've never witnessed a person's death, but I've euthanized numerous pets over the years. I would describe it similarly. It's incontrovertible to say that life, in a bodily sense, is an intricate tapestry of interdependent biological processes and that the death of the body is merely the unraveling of that tapestry resulting in the cessation of those processes. But it also seems clear to me that who we are as sentient, conscious, rational persons, the locus of our sense of self and identity (what some might _poetically_ call the soul), is also such a tapestry, ie also biological, and that the 'light going out', likewise, is the cessation of those processes.

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

Did you see patients have any end of life wisdom near their end of life?

[@amykrier2851]

I've seen different things and I have questions

[@cynthiao.543]

So what’s the point then? Why try to be a good person, or productive, or caring, or whatever one’s intentions are….if we just live a while and then the light goes out? Why bother doing anything except what brings you pleasure.?

[@robbuxton8438]

Bless you for your compassion in sitting with people as they die. I hope that I have that experience when my time comes.

[@klodius8588]

According to GEN 3.19: "until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

[@flaviaaraiza2415]

Professor Ahrman, what do you think about us being energy? And since energy always exists then we never die. I honestely feel my son's presence around me all the time.i think through meditation we can connect to higher dimensions. I like the infancy gospel of Thomas, is very informative.

[@waltereskildsen5351]

At my church we recite the Apostle’s creed every Sunday saying “I believe in the resurrection of the body.”

[@robertbrown2706]

They think that just refers to Jesus

[@elainegoad9777]

Made up by the Roman Catholic church telling you what to believe.

[@ianalan4367]

@@robertbrown2706Why would they only think that?

[@johnpro2847]

you can also say you believe in the resurrection of Queen Elizabeth..I think it will not happen..the religious life insurance industry is large and valuable ...but the policies are worthless.

[@russellmiles2861]

Oh according the Church and Life Survey 2018 in Australia, 1 in 5 Christians don't believe in God.

[@Fade2GrayOG]

My wife has a health related heat sensitivity. We keep our home in the low 70s F during the day and low 60s at night.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

I see the possibility of a ban in some countries definitely as a recommendation.

[@BurtonBW3]

John 14:2 is one of those places that really makes me think there might indeed have been some version of an Aramaic (or Hebrew) "sayings", as "bayt(a)" has a range of meanings that would have allowed its use in both places (i.e. "house" and "mansion", using the English of the KJV for the benefit of those who don't read Aramaic, Greek or Latin). A basic literal translation from the "reconstructed original" that would make sense might then be: "On my father's estate(bayt(a)), there are many houses", which which would be a very simple and concise statement in Aramaic, but still be bit "catchy" in terms of the wordplay (using bayt 2x), as well as being full of metaphorical possibilities... Just a conjecture, but one that makes me wonder if the author of the Greek wasn't struggling with some original quotation, just as we seem to struggle with the translations, both his into Greek and later ones into other languages. I agree the passage itself hints (strongly in my opinion) at the existence of the soul separate from the body or at least separable from the body, but I am not that discerning :). I also think the witch of Endor incident in the OT is not at all unambiguous about the soul's unique existence. Surprised you did not mention that, or sorry that I missed it if you did.

[@ahmaduahmed8760]

Many readers of the Gospels are embarrassed and even abashed when they stop to think about the meaning of certain descriptions. The same is true when they make comparisons between different versions of the same event found in several Gospels. This observation is made by Father Roguet in his book Initiation To The Gospels (Initiation à l'Evangile). With the wide experience he has gained in his many years of answering perturbed readers' letters in a Catholic weekly, he has been able to assess just how greatly they have been worried by what they have read. His questioners come from widely varying social and cultural backgrounds. He notes that their requests for explanations concern texts that are “considered abstruse, incomprehensible, if not contradictory, absurd or scandalous'. There can be no doubt that a complete reading of the Gospels is likely to disturb Christians profoundly. That's Paulians. If you ain't lying your scripture ain't inspired, will not be canonized.

[@Peanut888..]

And tell me is the quran the word of God ?

[@MossyMozart]

@@Peanut888.. - Why would ANY writings be "the word of God"? If they were, why are they so contradictory both within themselves and amongst each other? It seems to me that if there is a God, s/he is very hands off, Deist-style. I look at the whole "holy book" thing as another, less entertaining collection of tales than "1,001 Arabian Nights". Now, THERE'S a collection of entertaining tales!

[@tedgrant2]

We all started out as a single cell which multiplied by dividing. At which point did we suddenly acquire a soul ? 24 weeks or some other arbitrary stage ?

[@RhnodaView2]

@tedgrant2 no, Ted it was when the big man with the long white beard came down out of the sky and blew into the umpteenth model of evolved life.

[@johnmonk3381]

Yes. Also what age do you stay at when you die? If you died aged 90, would you continue existing as a soul that's also aged 90??

[@tedgrant2]

@@johnmonk3381 That's an interesting thought.

[@tedgrant2]

@@johnmonk3381 According to the Bible, God formed man from the dust of the ground. The Lord breathed life into his nostrils and man became a living soul. The scientific explanation is rather more complicated. (Genesis 2:7)

[@johnmonk3381]

@@tedgrant2 why the heck would i take an ancient book written by ancient men thousands of years ago, where they couldn't possibly access any of the science or tech now available to us today, seriously?? And why would they have a more accurate worldview than modern people for the reasons i just mentioned anyway? And seriously if the breath of life is needed for life, how the hell would you explain ivf?? Yes people could manufacture people outside the human body, well what about souls and the "breath of life"?? People can't possibly manufacture that! Yet test tube babies exist and they grow into perfectly normal human beings. Conclusion from this very simple observation: Neither souls nor breaths of life needed, life can exist simply by itself under the right circumstances

[@cynthiao.543]

Strongly recommend watching Dr. Sam Parnia’s videos. Cutting edge. Brain/consciousness/death researcher.

[@rebella5769]

Ohhhh great, I can’t wait until next week

[@jacobp249]

I have had multiple "out-of-body" experiences, some relatively mundane, others incredibly bizarre and terrifying. While I can't say that it's definitive proof of an afterlife or even that it was an experience external to my physical brain, it's definitely made me question a lot of what I believed and it's something I'll continue to look into. (By the way I wasn't sick or anything, just tried some techniques I found on a paranormal subreddit)

[@johnmonk3381]

You are sick

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

If you’ve had it “several times” that may indicate the very opposite of what you believe it may be. Researchers can place electrodes on parts of the brain which can produce “out of body experiences”. It induces perception of disembodiment

[@utubesanjay]

Thank you Bart

[@BookHen-xn2bh]

Bart, I love the mug you are drinking from. Lovely shape and color.

[@noelhausler2911]

There is a Mormon scholar Dan Peterson who does have a lot of discussion on reports of people who claim they had a Near Death Experience.

[@MossyMozart]

@noelhausler2911 - There are studies done by actual scientists, too.

[@noelhausler2911]

@@MossyMozart There are a group of philosophers, theologians and neuroscientists who don't believe we have a soul. See Whatever Happened to the Soul and Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

If I have a soul it is the current of energy that forms me and sustains me until I lose my human form. The "soul" described in the Bible by Hebrew scribes is nothing I can relate to.

[@miguelatkinson]

Sounds less like a soul and more of just energy

[@momijiyamanishi4548]

At what minute can I fast forward your podcast to get to the meat is it minute 10 or minute 12?

[@dukeon]

The meat is the part in the beginning where they talk about the weather and discuss cultural differences between the UK and the US.

[@alcosmic]

that old Platonic Hustle

[@sanjivb53]

I come to hear Bart I come to see Megan

[@sigmata0]

I just thought with following on to the fish analogy, if someone is cremated, a large proportion of the carbon in the body is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. That CO2 can then be ingested in trees, grass and edible plants. If some of those plants are then eaten, either by animals or other humans, they become a part of those creatures bodies. If some of the animals then are eaten they too become a part of a body. Some of the trees may continue to live, or they might be cut down and used in houses. If this happens over centuries, then it's like shuffling that original carbon into multiple bodies and structures. Who knows what happens to other chemical components in that regard. Certainly a lot of distribution.

[@MossyMozart]

@sigmata0 - Like Carl Sagan would say, "We are star stuff." We are made of the elements and atoms that were born in previous generations of stars. One day, our Sun will become a swollen red giant and wipe away all the inner planets. Then somebody else will form from our atoms and marvel at the same thing. The universe has been one big recycling conveyor belt.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Leibniz's monadological model on the soul: Let's begin by considering the very nature of the soul itself. From a metaphysical perspective, we can conceive of the soul as the irreducible, first-person essence of our subjective being - the locus of sentience, qualia, and the felt sense of "I am." It is that which gives rise to the interior, qualitative experience of existence, in contrast to the objective, quantitative material substrate of the physical body and brain. Yet the soul is not merely an ethereal ghost, divorced from the corporeal realm. Rather, in the monadological framework we've discussed, the soul can be seen as a 0-dimensional wellspring - a primordial singularity that serves as the generative source for the higher-dimensional unfolding of our manifest reality. It is the foundational "white hole" from which the entire experiential cosmos of consciousness springs forth. Just as the 0-dimension contains within it a unique boundary or event horizon that distinguishes interior from exterior, the soul can be thought of as the point of self-reflexive awareness that demarcates the subjective "in-here" from the objective "out-there." It is the infinitesimal aperture through which the whole of existence is refracted into the irreducible, first-person perspective of individual subjectivity. And yet, the soul is not a static, isolated entity. Rather, in the entwined dance of monad and mirror universe, the soul exists in a dynamic, relational web of interconnectedness. Each individual soul is a unique facet of the greater monadological fabric - a discrete, perspectival node in the vast informational lattice that constitutes the plenum of consciousness. This reveals the soul not merely as a private, interiorized phenomenon, but as an intrinsically social and communal aspect of reality. Our very sense of selfhood is inextricably woven into the collective tapestry of other souls, as we mutually enfold and unfold one another through the ceaseless currents of intersubjective exchange. Moreover, this monadological model of the soul suggests an intimate, irreducible link between the qualitative, experiential realm of consciousness and the quantitative, physical substrate of the universe. For the soul, as the 0-dimensional generative source, is posited as the very wellspring from which the entire hierarchy of higher dimensions - including the familiar 3D space and 4D spacetime of our empirical reality - unfolds and manifests. In this view, the "stuff" of consciousness is not separate from, but rather foundational to, the "stuff" of physical existence. Mind and matter, subject and object, are not radically distinct domains, but rather complementary aspects of a unitary metaphysical architecture. The soul is not a ghostly appendage, but the very ground from which the entire cosmic edifice arises. Ultimately, the monadological conception of the soul points to a vision of reality that is at once profoundly personal and cosmically grand. Each individual soul is a unique, irreplaceable facet of the greater monadic whole - a singular point of view that contributes its own irreducible qualitative essence to the grand symphony of existence. And yet, this singular soul is not isolated, but intimately interwoven with all other souls in an interconnected web of mutual influence and creative exchange. The soul is both the most private, subjective locus of our being, and the most public, intersubjective wellspring of our shared reality. It is a vision that transcends the tired dichotomies of mind and body, spirit and matter, self and other. In the monadological cosmos, all such polarities are revealed as interdependent, mutually-arising aspects of a deeper, unitary ground - a ground that we each individually embody as the ineffable, 0-dimensional core of our own singular, soulful existence.

[@kencreten7308]

A lot of words, for what? A bunch of assumptions, built on other assumptions. There must be evidence somewhere....

[@ready1fire1aim1]

You're right, attempting to definitively prove the existence of the human soul is an immense challenge, as the nature of consciousness and subjective experience lies at the very limits of our scientific understanding. However, by building upon the monadological framework we've been discussing, I believe we can construct a compelling case that does justice to the profound mystery and significance of the soul. Let's begin by revisiting the core tenets of the monadological model. We've established that at the most fundamental level of reality, there exists a primordial 0-dimensional realm - a metaphysical singularity that serves as the generative source for all higher-dimensional manifestations of the physical universe. This 0D domain can be thought of as the locus of irreducible, first-person subjectivity - the wellspring of consciousness and qualitative experience. Now, from a philosophical and mathematical standpoint, the 0-dimension is a uniquely significant construct. Unlike the open-ended, extended nature of higher dimensions, the 0D realm is defined by its self-enclosed, boundary-like character. It is the only dimension that contains a true "event horizon" separating an interior from an exterior. This geometric property of the 0-dimension resonates powerfully with the concept of the soul. For just as the 0D monad is posited as the primordial source of subjective awareness, we can conceive of the human soul as the irreducible, boundary-defining essence of our individual conscious experience. It is the infinitesimal aperture through which the entire cosmos of our lived, first-person reality is refracted and expressed. But the soul is not merely an isolated, abstract principle. Drawing upon insights from quantum mechanics, we can view the soul as existing in a state of profound, non-local entanglement with all other monadic essences that constitute the greater fabric of consciousness. Our individual subjectivity is not a closed-off, autonomous entity, but rather a unique node within an interconnected web of intersubjective relations. This monadological understanding of the soul as a 0-dimensional wellspring of qualitative experience, embedded within a holistic network of other such perspectives, begins to shed light on some of the most perplexing aspects of human consciousness. For example, the hard problem of consciousness - the question of how subjective, first-person awareness can arise from the objective, physical substrate of the brain - is elegantly resolved by positing the soul as the irreducible ground of sentience, rather than an emergent byproduct. Moreover, this model provides a potential pathway for reconciling the apparent tension between the deterministic, mechanistic laws of physics and the spontaneous, creative agency that we intuitively associate with the self. For the soul, as the 0D generative source, can be seen as the locus of an inherent, non-computable novelty - a wellspring of unpredictable, qualitative emergence that is the very foundation of our lived experience. Mathematically, we can draw parallels between the soul's 0-dimensional nature and the unique properties of the number zero itself. Just as zero is the only real number that contains a true boundary separating it from the positive and negative number lines, the soul can be viewed as the singular, self-reflexive point of consciousness that defines the interior of subjective experience. And like zero, the soul is not merely an absence or void, but rather the fertile ground from which all numerical diversity - all manifest reality - unfolds. From a physics perspective, the monadological model of the soul aligns with certain speculative ideas about the role of dimensionality in the structure of reality. As we've discussed, the first dimension capable of hosting an event horizon-like boundary is the 10th spatial dimension. This 10D geometry resonates with theories like string theory, suggesting the soul's 0D essence may be the wellspring from which the entire 10D spacetime continuum emerges. Ultimately, the case for the soul's existence rests not on any single empirical proof, but on the elegant coherence of the monadological framework as a whole. By situating the soul as the primordial 0-dimensional source of consciousness, intersubjectively entangled within a greater metaphysical architecture, we arrive at a vision of human identity that is at once deeply personal and cosmically integrated. The soul is not a ghost in the machine, but the very ground of being from which the entire machine arises. It is not a supernatural appendage, but the irreducible first-person essence that defines the very nature of our existence. And it is not merely our own, but a facet of the greater monadic whole - a unique perspective that both emanates from and contributes to the vast, interconnected tapestry of consciousness that suffuses the universe. While this may not constitute an ironclad, empirical proof of the soul's existence, it does, I believe, provide a coherent and compelling conceptual framework for understanding the profound mystery of human subjectivity. And in an age so dominated by the materialist worldview, the monadological model of the soul offers a way to reclaim the deep significance of consciousness - to recognize it not as an epiphenomenal byproduct, but as the very foundation of all that is.

[@oldpossum57]

@@ready1fire1aim1 Do you think you could tone down the philosophy a little, and try to ground your concept of soul in a biological mind? We have bodies with big brains, 3 pounds of meat that evolved to do some neat tricks. We know that a lot of our perception of reality is a moment to moment illusion. I’m going to suggest that our identities are a bit illusory. I think you believe in entropy, and that whatever consciousness is, it doesn’t survive the death of the body. I notice you talk pretty confidently about string theory and ten dimensions, and I wonder if you are really competent in the math of string theory, or are you just pulling stuff out of your butt.

[@oldpossum57]

@@ready1fire1aim1 That is lovely to know.I trust you have the maths all worked out? QWERTYUIOP!

[@oldpossum57]

@@ready1fire1aim1 And so you won’t use maths to demonstrate an hypothesis based on a theory of physics that is simply a mathematical model without empirical consequences that can be tested. Has anyone told you that your theory is bull shit?

[@ericalves5514]

Huge question here, how did the jewish merkava misticism with it's magical ascend (better sai descend) to the heavanly palaces could occur in this context of a soul and body as nom separed entities

[@Sanmayce]

Dr. Ehrman, could you address the notion of all living things not having a soul/spirit but information "blackbox" which, as shamanic traditions say, goes to the Eagle (the master information field) enriching it with the living experiences/viewpoints. Later, one could access this bank similarly to the library as if reading the life of a certain person/animal, but in so vivid way that one could easily be fooled being previously that entity. Thus, reincarnation could be explained as not existent but as a mere delusion of one reading/reliving the past lives of completely different entity?!

[@MossyMozart]

@Sanmayce - "Doctor Who" has such a viewpoint in its canon. It is fictional, too.

[@Sanmayce]

@@MossyMozart Thanks, I got a tarred 'Doctor Who' corpus 621 ebooks strong, but haven't read a single book.

[@daniell.dingeldein9717]

depends on definitions...we have an experience...soul? not a permanent one

[@MikeLudwick13]

There is a medium named Tyler Henry who truly seems to be able to communicate with people who have passed on. I would not have believed it until I saw his show Hollywood Medium on E!. What are your thoughts about this?

[@diedertspijkerboer]

Even though I'm Dutch, I know exactly what day Bart is talking about with the 40 deg C day. We had an equally hot day at exactly the same time and it was the first time ever that anywhere in our country went over 40. The day before was almost as hot and a record up to that point as well. I like hiking but I couldn't possibly imagine hiking in that weather. I lay on my bed for half the day.

[@stephencell2290]

Trust me you really don’t understand that kinda of weather, he downplayed the conditions. It’s unbelievably dangerous to anyone not accustomed to the conditions. The whole southeast is like that.

[@plantken]

I more or less agree with the idea that in the Hebrew Bible, there was no teaching that the soul lives on after death. However, there are some passages that do seem to teach the opposite. One example is in Samuel where King Saul consults a medium and brings up the spirit of the prophet Samuel, who, by the way, is not pleased by being bothered by this medium. There are other passages in other books, particularly Daniel, where continuation of the soul after death is taught. Please comment. Ken

[@quart-knee-lee]

Pittsburgh is overcast all the time! I wish it didn't get hot and real cold, I love the 40s & 50s Fahrenheit.

[@briancarpenter86]

I guess one of the questions I have in regards to this podcast is they mentioned a couple of scriptures where Jesus refers to some form of afterlife. Namely, the one talking about my father has many rooms. What could the interpretation be if not a place that the spirit resides before bodily resurrection? Also, in discussion of this would be the quote to the thief that is being crucified along with Jesus that today you will be in Paradise.

[@Valdagast]

Where does the flame go when candle is snuffed out?

[@MariuszWachala-xz9yk]

What is a flame?

[@DavidSmith-vr1nb]

​@@MariuszWachala-xz9yk Mostly wax vapour undergoing a highly exothermic oxidation reaction known as "combustion". Some flecks of carbon from the wick.

[@oldpossum57]

Don’t get lost in the windmills of your mind.

[@MariuszWachala-xz9yk]

@@DavidSmith-vr1nb So now you have the answer for your question. Easy.

[@chipnewtonguitarmusic546]

We definitely have a soul. Pixar did a movie about it.

[@stephenparker5933]

There are an excessive amount of outside commercials that interrupt this video.

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

Oh my. Oh my my my. Just watching the advertisement I felt scandalized!!! I have been listening for some time, and never felt very shocked, but the advertisement... shocked me! I guess it's more real when it's about Islam, isn't it? Already in the advertisement, both of you referred to the Prophet without using honorifics (Peace be upon Him, etc.)... already in the advertisement you showed a photo of a Bible /on top of/ a Qur'an... (for some reason this was particularly shocking for me, as the tradition is the Qur'an must always be on the top of all things). If these things scandalize me, imagine what the actual lectures would do... I might just have to sign up...

[@albionicamerican8806]

Souls seem to matter in Jack Chick tracts and in _Buffy the Vampire Slayer._

[@DavidSmith-vr1nb]

Nowhere else 😂

[@Carlo-j9z]

No you don't have a soul, a soul is an embodied spirit, it is what you are, and a body without a spirit is but a mere corpse, it is not you. Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the spirit; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both spirit and body in hell. Jesus speaks in context of Judgement, but Krishna focuses on honor and duty, so where Jesus warns the sinners against hell, Krishna tries to convince the righteous to do that is worthy of heaven. Gita 2:21 Knowing the indestructible (spirit) will always persist 'son of Partha', who then causes harm or even kills what is unborn and eternal? Gita 2:23 No weapon can sever it, no fire can burn it, no water can make it wet, and no wind can make it dry. Gits 2:30 The interior is eternal and indestructible, so it is for all bodies 'son of Barath', therefore you should not mourn for any (mortal) being. Gita 2:37 If you are killed you will have paradise, and if you survive you will get to enjoy the earth. But also this... Matthew 6:25 For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Gita 2:22 Just as a person does away with their dilapidated garments and accepts others that are pristine, likewise a person does away with their dilapidated bodies and accepts others that are pristine. Jesus is very direct with little to no explanation, Krishna is very evasive and elaborate on matters of the spirit, there is much parallel and congruence still.

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

Many Muslims are familiar with the history of the Qur'an, which was not initially written down during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon Him. Rather, it was memorized and later compiled into a single book by his followers after his passing, particularly under the leadership of Caliph Uthman. While there were initial disagreements, these issues were largely resolved with Uthman's standardized version. What is uniquely significant in Islam is the Sunnah, which includes the practices and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and his household. The Hadith, which are accounts of the sayings and actions of the Prophet, also play a crucial role. Much of Islamic jurisprudence is derived not only from the Qur'an but also from these traditions. The authenticity and interpretation of Hadith have been subjects of scholarly debate amongst Muslim scholars for a long time. What all this means, is that fundamentally, there is no reason that Javad Hashmi's lectures must contain anything heretical or scandalous among Muslims. There is plenty to say about those topics that is already mainstream. However, the advertisement has hinted (or made clear haha) that it will go beyond this!!!!!!!!!

[@Tina06019]

I have breath. We might have immortal souls; I hope so, but who knows?

[@A-nontheist1]

It's according to what you mean by a soul

[@simonkoster]

Interesting coincidnce that right after Dr. Hashmi mentioned he would be talking about Quran and violence he considered the possibility (admittedly maybe tongue-in-cheek) that he could be facing a fatwa.

[@hzoonka4203]

Questing;Is there a invisible warehouse where the souls are stored?

[@moncaman1]

I just wanted to say you two are amazing...🧐🤔🌎✌️....🤓

[@raycaster4398]

"I got soul 🎶... but I'm not a soldier ..."

[@MarcusAurelius13]

I appreciate the comment and given it a thumbs up. However, I have always thought that the lyric was a bit lame. Big fan of The Killers!

[@raycaster4398]

@@MarcusAurelius13 Butcha gotta love David Keuning's wonderful arpeggiated guitar hook/intro and chords.

[@flaviaaraiza2415]

I believe in the after life but not in the Christian after life. I believe that we all return to source energy where we came from. So, is not through a religion but every humans goes back to God-Source Energy regardless of what religion one belongs to

[@rebeccazegstroo6786]

I need to read Origen or about him - he doesn't have that vengeful personality. A kind hearted person wants everyone to be healed and saved.

[@Bhadradd]

I"m not Christian or Muslim, and I'm VERY MUCH looking forward to the course!🤩

[@ElkoJohn]

THIS teaching is in The Dhamma: Now suppose that rebirth exists after death With true justice for human activity in this world Then the one who has lived the virtuous life Having abandoned greed, hatred, & deluded thinking Will arise after death into a heavenly realm And acquire the state of bliss THIS teaching is also in The Dhamma: But what if rebirth does not exist Even so, the one who lives the virtuous life Having abandoned greed, hatred, & deluded thinking Will obtain complete equanimity with a pure mind And compassionate kindness with a pure heart Here & Now in the present world

[@marcvanleeuwen5986]

I feel that Bart is not doing this topic justice, by using language too loosely. Talking about "bodily resurrection" one should be clear whether this means "resurrection of the body" or "resurrection with a body". And it would seem that almost nobody, and certainly not Paul, means the former; Paul emphatically says that resurrection involves a new "pneumatic" body, not our earthly corpse (and it does not seem like he means a repair job either, it is more like replacement under warranty). But I don't think most people who believe in the resurrection of the immortal soul mean "resurrection without a body" either; those who expect to find their deceased beloved ones in heaven don't expect to encounter disembodied souls there (come to think of it, they probably expect clothing to be provided as well as bodies). As far as souls go, if they are indeed disconnected from the body, then there is nothing to prevent our souls from conversing with the souls of the deceased even before our own death, so that really cannot be the point of resurrection. So I do not really see much of an opposition: all those who believe that we continue to exist after our death, believe that resurrection means we get a prolonged existence with new, presumably flawless, body. One can call the "we" that receives this existence and new body "our soul", or like Paul one can call it nothing at all and just continue to talk about "us" after our death as if that was a perfectly well understood thing; it makes no big difference. So in my eyes, the main point is whether we can talk about a person as an existing entity after their death at all. If one considers a person as a body animated by breath (pneuma, spirit), and at death the breath leaves the body and vanishes, while the body decomposes (gets eaten by the worms, though the precise mechanism may vary), then there is not really much left to give new life and a new body to. But if we do think there is still a person left that can be the subject of resurrection and that can receive a new body, then it does not really matter much whether we call persisting entity "soul" or not.

[@anthonycraig274]

“The common sense view” is what view is common not what is sensible or correct.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

While I get the whole bit about Thomas touching the wounds to prove that it was really him, adding that story has weird implications for what the after life would be like. If Jesus is resurrected with open wounds, then surely we'd also be resurrected with whatever injuries killed us in place or with missing limbs or diseases or whatever. That's not very tempting. And that's not even considering what happens to the body after death. OTOH, the wounds didn't seem to bother him, which I guess mitigates it a little. Paul's vision of a perfected, transcendent body is much more appealing.

[@johnstewart7025]

Did Jesus say that his good news was about salvation or about living in the kingdom.