Abortion - at what point does a baby have the right to life?

[Soul]

There is one gospel. The word of God. Why even look for another knowing we have the perfect?

gospel

1 a often capitalized : the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation

b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
also : a similar apocryphal (see apocrypha sense 2) book

2 capitalized : a lection (see lection sense 1) from one of the New Testament Gospels

The dictations and visions that Maria Valtorta received from Jesus, and later published under the title The Poem of the Man-God, is an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ, meaning the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus, in my belief. It's not another Gospel. There are four Gospels. There are four, and four there will remain. Understood in detail or left in their broad outlines, four and no more.

 

[Mr GLee]

The dictations and visions that Maria Valtorta received from Jesus, and later published under the title The Poem of the Man-God, is an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ, meaning the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus, in my belief. It's not another Gospel. There are four Gospels. There are four, and four there will remain. Understood in detail or left in their broad outlines, four and no more.

There is one gospel. . . the living abiding word of God as it is written .

God is simply is not bringing any new . .we have the perfect sealed with 7 seals till the end of time..Need more ? Why?

Satan King of lying sings to wonder after is super busy today with the new alphabet LGBTQIA2S+ . needs . . . removing gender differences murdering babies his attempt to destroy the whole human races .As in be fruitless and die why multiply . the delusion God sends takes away the power of lying signs to wonder after . we walk by faith of the gospel the unseen eternal things to the same spiritual unseen

2 Thessalians 2:9-11 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
I would suggest believers must be careful how they hear who they say they do, Lying signs that cause wonderment is not a form of prophecy a evil generation (non redeemed) do seek after .

Jesus lovingly commands those who do seek after lying signs . . declaring .marvel or wonder not rather trust the gospel from faith to faith as it is the power that destroys lying signs to wonder /doubt.. . . wonder, doubt after a living purgatory

Romans speaks to the power of the gospel faith (the unseen spiritual things of God to the same powerful faith

Roman 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

[Arial]

As I said, in Jn. 4:24 we read, "God is Spirit" (I capitalize the "s" out of respect to God, because it's referencing Him), and because God is Spirit (an incorporeal Being), making us in His image and likeness would have to be of a spiritual nature, and that's what God breathed into the first formed man:

When the "s" is capitalized it refers to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. Otherwise it is used of many things and in many ways. We can see this when the very same Hebrew or Greek word is used in those various ways.

Spirit Meaning - Bible Definition and References

Discover the meaning of Spirit in the Bible. Study the definition of Spirit with multiple Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and find scripture references in the Old and New Testaments.

www.biblestudytools.com

God did not create man as incorpereal or He could not have pronounced a sentence of death on us for disobedience. It is not until the resurrection of those in Christ that we are made immortal, and even then we have the same physical body resurrected in glory. That is what Jesus came to do and does. (1 Cor 15) We are physical and we have a spirit.

the "breath of life," or the "soul," which is a spirit like God is, and it has the characteristics of Him Who creates it.

The breath of life is life, where there was no life. Defining it as soul as you do, as though we are not all of one piece, is actually peering into the hidden things of God where we cannot see.

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of the law.

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways!

 

[Eleanor]

Right, so I don't see why you took issue with my having said that in Scripture we read God wanted to make man in His image and likeness then.
As I said, in Jn. 4:24 we read, "God is Spirit" (I capitalize the "s" out of respect to God, because it's referencing Him), and because God is Spirit (an incorporeal Being), making us in His image and likeness would have to be of a spiritual nature,

Incorporeal is non-material, non-physical, without body.
God has energy. Is our physical energy spiritual?

and that's what God breathed into the first formed man: the "breath of life," or the "soul," which is a spirit like God is, and it has the characteristics of Him Who creates it. It's therefore intelligent, spiritual, free, immortal, and so on, like the Father who created it. Man's morality and rationality is because of the breath of life, or the soul (spirit), that God gave us, which is the part of us within us that gives us His image and likeness. There's a lot more information Jesus gave about the soul, in my belief, that I've saved in my Google docs.
I thought that's what you were asking, but your question was initially worded differently than that, so I wanted to be sure first. To answer your question, yes animals are living, but it's life, simply life, that is, being sensitive to real things, both material and emotional. When an animal dies it becomes insensitive because death is its real end. There is no future for it. But while it lives it suffers cold, hunger, fatigue, it is subject to injuries, to pain, to joy, to love, to hatred, to diseases and to death. Man lives as well, but unlike animals, physical death is not our real end, because the soul (spirit) that man was given and has within them is immortal, and thus when we physically die we continue to live, either in life (Heaven) or death (Hell).

Regarding your belief that Scripture doesn't tell us whether animals have souls are not, there's more than one way to say something, and I believe Scripture tells us that animals don't have a soul (God's image and likeness), because in Gen. 1:26 we don't read, "And he said: "Let us make man and animals to our image and likeness," nor in Gen. 1:27 do we read, "And God created man and animals to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them." Only in man after he was formed did God breathe "the breath of life," or the soul (spirit) into him, not animals: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7);" And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam" (Gen. 2:19).



So, does that mean you've ruled out the possibility that your view about "His image and likeness" and "breathe of life" isn't completely accurate?



For example, Gamaliel's advice can apply to Maria Valtorta's Work: "And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God." [Ac. 5:38-39]

The Poem of the Man-God has not "come to nought," because on February 26th, 1948, Pope Pius XII gave canonical approval to publish The Poem of the Man-God, more than that an instruction to publish, given at the Vatican before official witnesses.

On March 17, 1993 Bishop Soosa Pakiam of Trivandrum granted an imprimatur to the Malayalam translation of The Poem of the Man-God. What is the juridic import of this imprimatur? It means thatclassroom instruction (in elementary, middle, or high schools) in religious or moral disciplinesmay be based on the Malayalam translation of the Poem. The imprimatur is only valid for thistranslation and so does not give permission for other language editions of the Poem to be used asthe basis for classroom instruction in elementary, middle, or high schools.

Since 1996, acceptance of The Poem of the Man-God has spread widely with imprimatur granted by Bishop Roman Danylak in Rome [1998] for all the approved English translations.

I hope you decide to read or at least glance at the chapters of this e-book entitled “Proofs of the Supernatural Origin of Maria Valtorta’s Visions Described in Her Work” and “A Detailed Analysis of Maria Valtorta and Her Writings According to the Traditional 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia’s Thorough Criteria for Assessing Private Revelations” before making a definitive judgment on whether you think this private revelation is authentic or not (whether it has a divine origin or not).

“Extinguish not the Spirit. Despise not prophecies; but test all things, and hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5: 19-21)

 

[Arial]

When an animal dies it becomes insensitive because death is its real end. There is no future for it.

You don't know that and neither does anyone else. There were animals created at creation. They are serving a purpose. There will be animals in the new heaven and the new earth. The lion will lie down with the lamb. Does God create all new animals? Maybe. We don't know because he doesn't tell us. Will they be some of the same ones that were especially bound with his people? We don't know. He doesn't tell us.

Regarding your belief that Scripture doesn't tell us whether animals have souls are not, there's more than one way to say something, and I believe Scripture tells us that animals don't have a soul (God's image and likeness)

Well you would think that if you believed that the soul is the image and likeness of God. But the Bible doesn't say that either----I assume it is something the mystic said and so you take it as indisputable truth. And because a Pope declared it so. But I am a Protestant. I am thoroughly convinced of sola scriptura, since Scripture declares and proves itself to be the very Word of God. He declared what is in it, put it in there, and closed the covers. No other writing or declaration of what is God's word can stake that claim. And anything that is written or declared by men outside of the Scripture, if it contradicts one truth in the Bible, is not true.

in Gen. 1:26 we don't read, "And he said: "Let us make man and animals to our image and likeness," nor in Gen. 1:27 do we read, "And God created man and animals to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them." Only in man after he was formed did God breathe "the breath of life," or the soul (spirit) into him, not animals: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7);" And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam" (Gen. 2:19).

What a stinky pile of red herring and presuppositions. You need to prove from the source----the Scripture itself---that your interpretation of what the soul is is correct. That would exclude what the Pope declares or any mystic. In this the Catholic religion is quite gnostic.

So, does that mean you've ruled out the possibility that your view about "His image and likeness" and "breathe of life" isn't completely accurate?

I would not go so far as to say it is completely accurate. We will never know all there is to know about everything or even anything, this side of the grave or the return of Jesus. But it, in faith, accepts what is said in the creation account, rather than telling God what is and what isn't. IOW I don't try to ascertain the hidden things of God with my finite mind, or try to reach the unreachable. I know your assertion is suspect considering the source is outside of Scripture.

I know in what ways man is a type of analogy of God---similar to him in some ways but exactly like him in no ways. And that as such, it is an implicit command that we rule over and tend to the creation (given to us in the creation account) with the same goodness and morality that God has. We are to bear His image. It is, to put it in human terms---the great King and ruler of all creation rules from heaven. He gives to mankind the earth as man's home and appoints him as vassal king to oversee it. But always and in every way this vassal king is subject to the commands of the King to obey him completely and perfectly.

 

[Arial]

So, does that mean you've ruled out the possibility that your view about "His image and likeness" and "breathe of life" isn't completely accurate?

I told you why I know it wasn't Jesus speaking in what he supposedly dictated to a mystic. You ignored it and posted this red herring instead.

For example, Gamaliel's advice can apply to Maria Valtorta's Work: "And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God." [Ac. 5:38-39]

And it came to nought. Only in the Catholic religion and by the decree of a Pope, a fallible man, is it declared to be the words of Jesus.

The Poem of the Man-God has not "come to nought," because on February 26th, 1948, Pope Pius XII gave canonical approval to publish The Poem of the Man-God, more than that an instruction to publish, given at the Vatican before official witnesses.

That is no proof at all. The Pope isn't God and does not speak for God. What you give as proof is meaningless to me. I need to see it from the Bible itself. It was written by a mystic and is mysticism.

“Extinguish not the Spirit. Despise not prophecies; but test all things, and hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5: 19-21)

Test it against what? The Catholic church? That is not what God in his word tells us to test prophecies against. It is not what the Bereans did.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The word reign is a metaphor used for turning power led by the Spirit.

Sure, except the word was "rein," which in the KJV meant the kidneys or inner parts of the body, such as "possessed my reins" (Ps 139:13) because they were translating כִלְיָה (kilyah).

It would be helpful for the reader if we could maintain a careful distinction between rein, reign, and rain.

It is used several time in parables.

Just to be clear, "reins" is never used anywhere in the gospels. In fact, it's not used anywhere in the New Testament except in Revelation 2:23.

Jeremiah 31:18 (KJV), "I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

In that way you can use other words for reign but it does not change the outcome.

Again, the word was "rein"—which, from the 20th century onward, referred to leather straps fastened to a bit in a horse's mouth. That is why it serves as an example of how the KJV can leave a modern reader confused, and that is why I shared the same passage in modern English.

But then a similar example appears in this passage from Jeremiah, too. Here we have an expression that sounds strange to someone fluent in 20th-century English: "I smote upon my thigh." That expression may have been familiar to people 250 years ago (1769 CE), but today it's not one that we are accustomed to hearing. What does it mean? Good question.

And the fact that it's a good question just highlights my point.

(For the readers' sake: Smiting one's thigh or beating one's breast was a culturally significant gesture to Jewish people back then, but it is foreign to North Americans in the 21st century. What it signified, however, is something familiar to pretty much anyone throughout history, which is deep sorrow, shame, grief, distress, and often repentance. Such action was part of a broader range of non-verbal communication that included tearing garments or wearing sackcloth and so forth. The New Living Translation rendered it this way, which I think conveys the truth exactly: "I turned away from God, but then I was sorry. I kicked myself for my stupidity! I was thoroughly ashamed of all I did in my younger days.")

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

For your information, I have noticed those who go to the Greek and Hebrew for the translation of [God's] words often quarrel over each other in rightly translating the words. Plus, scriptures did not teach us to go to the Greek and Hebrew to understand his words, but to Jesus Christ for wisdom.

I disagree. What I have observed is that the conflict between those who argue over a text is usually not about translating but rather interpreting the text, which implicates authority. It is why the Roman Catholic Church was so opposed to the scriptures being translated into the common tongue, or why Arminians cannot agree with the exegesis of Reformed scholars. When it comes to straight translation of the Greek into English, there is very little disagreement at all. The disagreements arise when we interpret its meaning and application—the biblical exegesis—and it nearly always comes down to authority. The exegesis cannot agree when there is a conflict of authority.

For example, practically everyone can agree that τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων translates into English as "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15). But the interpretation of this, what it means, the exegesis, that's another matter entirely.

And when we go to the canonical scriptures we are precisely going to Jesus Christ, sir, for he is the Word of God and the canonical scriptures testify of him—according to Christ himself and attested by his Spirit in us. Translations of the Bible are obviously not directly inspired (breathed-out) by God, whether the King James Version or the English Standard Version or any other translation. As you said, "There are errors in the KJV." It was only the original manuscripts that were directly inspired by God and are inerrant and infallible, written as they were in the Hebrew and Greek languages (and some Aramaic). That, sir, is why the original languages are the ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy, as the Westminster Confession of Faith declares.

I can understand your point, just as my trying to convince people today that uncleanness—as listed in among the works of the flesh, between fornication and lasciviousness (which is sexual excessiveness)—applies to masturbation. Just because the term uncleanness is archaic, that does not mean he could help us understand what uncleanness applies to for what we would all it today, back then.

I'm not sure that makes the same point that I was aiming for, but I certainly agree with you that uncleanliness (ἀκαθαρσία, akatharsia) includes masturbation.

You see, while "reins" no longer means kidneys or the inner parts of the body, "uncleanliness" does still mean moral and sexual impurity. So, it's probably not exactly the same point.

I will strongly advise that if you have trouble correcting anyone with the NET Bible ... {snip the rest}

While I do typically quote from the New English Translation, I am not closed off to other translations. So far, nobody has ever resisted doctrinal correction on account of the Bible version from which I quoted; their resistance is usually on account of other factors, typically authority or tradition. In other words, I would be confronted by the same resistance no matter what Bible version I used.

And, in my experience, most people question the wording of the passage I quoted from the NET not because they have a problem with it—few people are even aware of the NET, much less recognize it or have a problem with it—but because it's different from the wording with which they are most familiar. They grew up reading or hearing from the NIV or KJV, and the material I quoted didn't quite strike that familiar chord. If they express some misgivings about that difference, if they would rather we use their preferred version of the Bible, I am happy to accommodate their preference because, as I said, I am not closed off to other translations.

Thanks for sharing. May the Lord bless you and keep you. May he shine his face upon you and give you his peace.

Cheers, mate. May you dwell in the peace of God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[This was a duplicate post and is deleted.]

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In Genesis 1:26 we read, "Let us make man to our image and likeness"—not, "Let us make man and animals to our image and likeness," ... [etc.].

Unfortunately, you are making an irrelevant point here because literally nobody in this thread is arguing that animals are image-bearers of God (nor is anybody arguing that animals have souls). I think we all agree that humans alone are made in the image of God.

And, yes, we do observe God saying here, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." But I will need you to notice that it doesn't say, "Let us give man our image and likeness." Stop and read that again. I sincerely hope your attention is sufficiently drawn to the crucial and important difference between what you said and what the holy scriptures said.

And I hope you can understand and appreciate that other Christians and I believe strongly that only the canonical scriptures carry divine authority. Your words, while they may be meaningful, are precisely that—your words—and thus are not part of the divine canon and do not carry that authority.

(We would also reject Maria Valtorta's claim that Jesus privately dictated anything to her and for similar reasons, among others. I understand that you believe otherwise, but please respect that this thread is not the place for that discussion. I am inclined to start a thread on that subject, so I will tag you when I do.)

In Genesis 1:2 we read [about] "the Spirit of God," and in John 4:24 we read [that] "God is Spirit." Thus, his image and likeness would have to be of a spiritual nature.

That might follow on the substantive (ontological) view of the image of God, but I would have to leave that for people who hold that view to discuss (as many Roman Catholics do). I hold to the royal-functional view of the image of God; under that view, what you wrote isn't even coherent, I'm afraid.

It's my understanding that, in Genesis 2:7, after God had formed the first man from the earth, the "breath of life" that he breathed into him (not also animals) is another name for "soul,"

Please cite the scholar whose exegesis demonstrates that נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat chayyim) and נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyah) are interchangeable terms (i.e., "another name for").

As far as I can tell, they are not interchangeable terms and for the following reason:

1. נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat chayyim, "breath of life") is what God imparts to the lifeless man made of dust. It is the divine, life-giving cause.

2. נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyah, "living soul") is what the man becomes after receiving the breath of life. It is the effect or result the divine, life-giving breath.
​

They are categorically distinct, not interchangeable. We have three different elements here in a specific equation, as it were:

Lifeless dust man + Divine breath of life = Living soul.
​

And death is the reverse of this:

Living soul - Divine breath of life = Lifeless dust man.
​

"The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the life's breath returns to God who gave it" (Eccl 12:7), "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen 3:19). A living soul is what you are. The breath of life is what God does. When God withdraws his breath of life, that living soul is no longer—"all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust" (Job 34:15).

These are not interchangeable things.

To quote Jesus, in my belief, "This wonderful thing which is a soul, a thing created by God to give man his image and likeness as an unquestionable sign of his most holy paternity, ..." {snip the rest}

No, you are quoting Maria Valtorta. Let her own the blasphemy of claiming to quote Jesus. Say instead, "According to Maria Valtorta, Jesus said, ..."

We all have access to all five volumes. We all know exactly where that quote originates and it is not the Bible, as even you would admit. It is found on page 53 in the third volume of Valtorta's work, in the context of a conversation about reincarnation.

You are quoting Valtorta, not Jesus. A canon of his words exists. Quote from that. After all, your interests include translation and exegesis, so let's stick to the divine canon and not apocryphal works.

The dictations and visions that Maria Valtorta received from Jesus, and later published ..., is an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ, in my belief. It's not another Gospel. There are four Gospels. There are four, and four there will remain.

If that is the case, then there are only three Gospels, since what John wrote was an expansion of what was contained in the three Gospels.

Or maybe there was only two, since the same thing could be said about what Luke wrote.

Ultimately, in that case, there is only one Gospel—as @makesends suggested—which the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John describe each in their own ways.

And Valtorta's work is not canonical, as you would admit, but rather apocryphal and inferior to the scriptures—so stop making her works your first (and often only) citation.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sure, except the word was "rein," which in the KJV meant the kidneys or inner parts of the body, such as "possessed my reins" (Ps 139:13) because they were translating כִלְיָה (kilyah).

It would be helpful for the reader if we could maintain a careful distinction between rein, reign, and rain

Woah. . pull back a little.

Spiritual words give us the understanding of the Spirit that does dwell in those born from above. f any has not the Spirit of Christ they do not belong to Him The proper interpretation tools must be applied.

Satan would make it all about the things seen the dying temporal (flesh and blood) not mixing it with faith the power of God by which we can miraculously believe the eternal Christ the one husband

1 Corinthians2: 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

Used 14 times in the old.. never a human anatomy

Psalm 7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.

Psalm 16:7 I will bless the Lord, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.

Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.


It would helpful to compare the spiritual understanding to the spiritual understanding, hid in parables from natural unredeemed ; rather than try and make a point about the human antinomy and culturally significant . Cultural has not significance in the gospel God draws with invisible powerful reins Not about inner parts they are used in a parables to convey the spiritual hid.

 

[Soul]

There is one gospel. . . the living abiding word of God as it is written .

The Gospel refers to the four books, or Gospels, in the New Testament about the Life of Christ: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, and the Book of John.

gospel

1 a often capitalized : the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation

b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
also : a similar apocryphal (see apocrypha sense 2) book

2 capitalized : a lection (see lection sense 1) from one of the New Testament Gospels

The dictations and visions that Maria Valtorta received from Jesus, and later published under the title The Poem of the Man-God, is an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ, meaning that the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus, in my belief. It's not another Gospel, in other words, it's not a fifth Gospel. There are four Gospels. There are four, and four there will remain. Understood in detail or left in their broad outlines, four and no more.

You don't know that and neither does anyone else.

I can't say that myself and others don't know that animals don't have a soul (a spirit) within their bodies as man does, because in our belief Jesus has explained why they don't.

God did not create man as incorporeal or He could not have pronounced a sentence of death on us for disobedience. It is not until the resurrection of those in Christ that we are made incorporeal, and even then we have the same physical body resurrected in glory. That is what Jesus came to do and does. (1 Cor 15) We are physical and we have a spirit.

I didn't say that God created man as non-physical beings, but rather, "God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). What are bones? A proof of the power of God Who made man with dust, but nothing else. The act of having "breathed the breath of life upon" indicates giving something that makes man who he is: a creature bearing the image and likeness of God. God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24), and thus "the breath of life" is a soul (spirit): His image, that He gives to each man. The soul of man (spirit) within him has the likenesses, or characteristics, of Him Who creates it. It's therefore intelligent, spiritual, free, immortal, and so on, like the Father Who created it. After our physical body dies, our soul (spirit) remains alive, as it's immortal, and when our physical body and spiritual soul rejoin together, we will either live in eternal life (Heaven), or live in eternal death (Hell).

You need to prove from the source----the Scripture itself---that your interpretation of what the soul is is correct.

You say that I need to prove my belief using Scripture, the same source that you acknowledge we will never know all there is to know about everything or even anything from. What kind of proof from Scripture about the soul do you need, and can you provide similar proof for your own position about it?

[...] IOW I don't try to ascertain the hidden things of God with my finite mind, or try to reach the unreachable.

Instead, you speak for Jesus by asserting that He doesn't dictate further revelation to any individual, despite such a statement not being found in any of the four Gospels, or Scripture in general, while being someone who believes that only what is found in Scripture is the truth.

And it came to nought.

If that were true, The Poem of the Man-God wouldn't have the proofs that confirm its origin is God, nor be flourishing as it has been and still is.

I know in what ways man is a type of analogy of God---similar to him in some ways but exactly like him in no ways. And that as such, it is an implicit command that we rule over and tend to the creation (given to us in the creation account) with the same goodness and morality that God has. We are to bear His image. It is, to put it in human terms---the great King and ruler of all creation rules from heaven. He gives to mankind the earth as man's home and appoints him as vassal king to oversee it. But always and in every way this vassal king is subject to the commands of the King to obey him completely and perfectly.

To confirm that, I'll quote Jesus, in my belief: "It [the soul] is the true nobility of man, because of his soul, there is the blood of God, because a soul is the spiritual blood—as God is a Most Pure Spirit— of the Creator of man: of the eternal, Almighty Holy God. Because of the soul, which is in him, and which is alive as long as it is united to God, man is eternal, powerful, and holy. It is naturally inclined to worship because it remembers the One Who created it: God." (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II)

"God desired to put a king in the universe that He had created out of nothing. A king, who by the nature of matter should be the first amongst all the creatures created with matter and endowed with matter. A king, who by nature of the spirit should be little less than divine, united to Grace as he was in his first innocent day. But the Supreme Mind, to Whom all the most remote events in centuries are known, incessantly sees what was, is and will be ; and while It contemplates the past, and observes the present, It penetrates deeply with Its foresight into the most distant future and knows in every detail how the last man will die. Without confusion or discontinuity the Supreme Mind has always known that the king created to be demigod at Its side in Heaven, heir of the Father, would arrive adult in His Kingdom, after living in the house of his mother-the earth, with which he was made-during his childhood, as child of the Eternal Father for his day on earth. The Supreme Mind has always known that man would have committed against himself the crime of killing Grace in himself and the theft of robbing himself of Heaven.

Why then did He create him? Certainly many ask themselves why. Would you have preferred not to exist? Does this day not deserve, in itself, to be lived, although so poor and bare, and rendered harsh by your wickedness, so that you may know and admire the infinite Beauty that the hand of God has sown in the universe?"

"The joy of God lacked nothing: God had no need. He is sufficient in Himself. He has only to contemplate Himself to rejoice, to nourish Himself, to live, to rest. The whole creation has not increased by one atom His infinite joy, beauty, life, power. He made everything for the creature that He wanted to place as king in the work made by Him: that creature is man." (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I)

 

[Soul]

Unfortunately, you are making an irrelevant point here because literally nobody in this thread is arguing that animals are image-bearers of God [...]

I didn't say that, but rather stated that God doesn't make animals according to His image and likeness, in other words, He doesn't give them a soul (spirit), as a preface to the point I made.

And, yes, we do observe God saying here, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." But I will need you to notice that it doesn't say, "Let us give man our image and likeness."

I'm not wrong in saying that "Let us make man according to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26) means "Let us give man our image and likeness," because in Gen. 2:7 we read, "God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). What are bones? A proof of the power of God Who made man with dust, but nothing else. The act of having "breathed the breath of life upon" indicates giving something that makes man who he is: a creature bearing the image and likeness of God. God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24), and thus "the breath of life" is a soul (spirit): His image, that He gives to each man. The soul of man (spirit) within him has the likenesses, or characteristics, of Him Who creates it. It's therefore intelligent, spiritual, free, immortal, and so on, like the Father Who created it. After our physical body dies, our soul (spirit) remains alive, as it's immortal, and when our physical body and spiritual soul rejoin together, we will either live in eternal life (Heaven), or live in eternal death (Hell).

I hold to the royal-functional view of the image of God; under that view, what you wrote isn't even coherent, I'm afraid.

To quote Jesus, in my belief: "God desired to put a king in the universe that He had created out of nothing. A king, who by the nature of matter should be the first amongst all the creatures created with matter and endowed with matter. A king, who by nature of the spirit should be little less than divine, united to Grace as he was in his first innocent day. But the Supreme Mind, to Whom all the most remote events in centuries are known, incessantly sees what was, is and will be ; and while It contemplates the past, and observes the present, It penetrates deeply with Its foresight into the most distant future and knows in every detail how the last man will die. Without confusion or discontinuity the Supreme Mind has always known that the king created to be demigod at Its side in Heaven, heir of the Father, would arrive adult in His Kingdom, after living in the house of his mother-the earth, with which he was made-during his childhood, as child of the Eternal Father for his day on earth. The Supreme Mind has always known that man would have committed against himself the crime of killing Grace in himself and the theft of robbing himself of Heaven"

"The joy of God lacked nothing: God had no need. He is sufficient in Himself. He has only to contemplate Himself to rejoice, to nourish Himself, to live, to rest. The whole creation has not increased by one atom His infinite joy, beauty, life, power. He made everything for the creature that He wanted to place as king in the work made by Him: that creature is man." (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I)

"It [the soul] is the true nobility of man, because of his soul, there is the blood of God, because a soul is the spiritual blood—as God is a Most Pure Spirit— of the Creator of man: of the eternal, Almighty Holy God. Because of the soul, which is in him, and which is alive as long as it is united to God, man is eternal, powerful, and holy. It is naturally inclined to worship because it remembers the One Who created it: God." (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II)

Please cite the scholar whose exegesis demonstrates that נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat chayyim) and נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyah) are interchangeable terms (i.e., "another name for").

As far as I can tell, they are not interchangeable terms and for the following reason:

1. נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat chayyim, "breath of life") is what God imparts to the lifeless man made of dust. It is the divine, life-giving cause.

2. נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyah, "living soul") is what the man becomes after receiving the breath of life. It is the effect or result the divine, life-giving breath.

First, I noticed you said that God "imparts" (synonym: "gives") the breath of life, yet you say I'm wrong in saying that God "gives" (synonym: "imparts") His image and likeness (the breath of life). Why is my saying that the breath of life is "given" any different from your saying that the breath of life is "imparted?" It appears there's no disagreement in that aspect.

Second, I said the terms "soul" and "breath of life" (Gen. 2:7) are interchangeable, not that "living soul" and "breath of life" are.

We all have access to all five volumes. We all know exactly where that quote originates and it is not the Bible, as even you would admit. It is found on page 53 in the third volume of Valtorta's work, in the context of a conversation about reincarnation.

At the end of Jesus's quote about the soul that I shared, I cited the link that would direct you, and anyone else, to the volume and chapter in The Poem of the Man-God where the full quote is found. So, you're welcome. And, as you said, the context surrounding the quote was about reincarnation, but not in the way that you seem to be insinuating. Jesus was in a conversation with a Greek woman named Syntyche who was wanting clarification from Him about the soul and a theory of reincarnation among heathens. In response to her, His very first sentence was, "Listen. You must not believe that the fact that souls have spontaneous recollections of Truth proves that we live several lives."

If that is the case, then there are only three Gospels, since what John wrote was an expansion of what was contained in the three Gospels.

Or maybe there was only two, since the same thing could be said about what Luke wrote.

Ultimately, in that case, there is only one Gospel—as @makesends suggested—which the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John describe each in their own ways.

The Gospel refers to the four books, or Gospels, in the New Testament about the Life of Christ: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, and the Book of John:

gospel

b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

The dictations and visions that Maria Valtorta received from Jesus, and later published under the title The Poem of the Man-God, is an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ, meaning that the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus, in my belief. It's not another Gospel, in other words, it's not a fifth Gospel. There are four Gospels. There are four, and four there will remain. Understood in detail or left in their broad outlines, four and no more.

 

[Arial]

You say that I need to prove my belief using Scripture, the same source that you acknowledge we will never know all there is to know about everything or even anything from.

That is not what I said.

 

[Mr GLee]

The Gospel refers to the four books, or Gospels, in the New Testament about the Life of Christ: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, and the Book of John.

That is simply a oral tradition of dying mankind . We are warned of another gospel

The gospel is the whole "book of law" or "book of life. No laws missing by which we could know Christ more intimately or adequately

One author Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, that warns of those who seek after another gospel other than sola scriptura

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen

Satan the king of lying signs to wonder after will be busy giving false vison as false prophecy like the one you are offering ..

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Why go above that which is written? What is the living hope? God forgot something?

 

[Soul]

That is not what I said.

If it's not, then you think all there is to know about everything or anything is found in Scripture?

 

[Soul]

That is simply a oral tradition of dying mankind. We are warned of another gospel

The gospel is the whole "book of law" or "book of life.

There's nothing about any of that in the definition of the word "gospel" regarding Christianity:

"Gospel

b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ"

"Gospel, any of four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus Christ. Written, according to tradition, respectively by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John (the four evangelists) [...]"

The dictations and visions that Maria Valtorta received from Jesus, and later published under the title The Poem of the Man-God, is an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ, meaning that the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in by Jesus, in my belief. It's not another Gospel, in other words, it's not a fifth Gospel. There are four Gospels. There are four, and four there will remain. Understood in detail or left in their broad outlines, four and no more.

 

[prism]

The Gospel refers to the four books, or Gospels, in the New Testament about the Life of Christ: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, and the Book of John.

It also refers to the sections Jesus did to secure our redemption...

1 Corinthians 15:1,3-4 NKJV
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, [3] For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [4] and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Which is explained crystal clear in Romans chapters 1-3, especially 3:21 and on.

Warnings of another Gospel...

Galatians 1:8-9 NKJV
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

It's a serious issue dabbling with false gospels.

 

[Josheb]

Conception

 

[Arial]

If it's not, then you think all there is to know about everything or anything is found in Scripture?

Of course not. I am saying prying into things that we are not given in Scripture belong to the secret things of God, and all our speculations are speculations, and should not be considered absolutes. God gives us all that we need to know about Himself, redemption, and doctrinal truths, for salvation, worship and godly living. And the Scripture is the only authority on those things. Everything said, written, taught, practiced by men must come from within the Bible as to its truthfulness and be in agreement with Scripture. The authority is not with men, but with God through the Scripture.

All I said was no one knows everything about anything. There is no end to learning the things of God in this life. That is how deep and wide and multifaceted He is.