7 July 2018

IRENT Vol. III. Supplement

No. 1 (Words, Words and Words)
No. 2 (Text, Translation and Translations)
No. 3A (Name, God, and Person)
No. 3B Man, anthropology, and religion
No. 4 (Place, Things, and Numbers)
No. 5 (Time, Calendar and Chronology)
No. 5 (Passion Week Chronology)

#3B of WALK THROUGH THE SCRIPTURE

No. 3B Man, anthropology, and religion

See a separate Zip file for Collections for Supplement III No. 3B
*body; *flesh *soul’; *spirit;
www.revisedenglishversion.com/appendix/7/Usages_of_Soul/

Spirit

Power, force, work – in physic terms

energy, radiation vs. matter
spirit-being, ghost, 'soul'

spirit; soul; body

spirit; soul; body – human spirit, human soul, human body

*Tripartite understanding of human nature; ‘Tripartite man’

[It is not about trichotomous ‘structure’ as such, but a way of describing different aspects
of human being in its existence and living. No doctrine can tell about the reality. e.g.
Trinitarian Doctrine does not tell about the reality – what God is, but it can and should
be only an attempt to describe it. When it goes beyond limit of its logical task, it becomes
unbiblical ‘doctrine’ from limited human understanding and thoughts – instead of
dwelling on relationality it ventures out to a study on hierarchical structure.

Related terms – anthropologya; metaphysical anthropology; tripartite anthropology;

anthropological trichotomy; mind-body dualism; soul-body dichotomy; triaxial (spirit as
the axis; body spinning as if a wheel; soul (spirit + body) orbiting.

[Cf. 1Th 5:23 – all three thought-elements appears in one verse.] [For three expressions
God-, self- and world- consciousness – C.I. Scofield] [Not to be confused with tripartite
structure of human personality – id, ego and super-ego.]

a
(Cf. Anthropology of religion wiki)
www.academia.edu/1156338/Anthropological_Approaches_to_the_Study_of_Religion
A human being is not to be pictured like a *tripartite structure as if composed of three
compartments.a Nor it is as a three concentric circle (with the spirit as innermost and the body
as outermost circle), but three discs stacked (largest bottom one as the body with fastest linear
speed and the top smallest one as the spirit rotating slowest speed) rotating together around a
common axis. It is dynamic descriptive term of function, not a static fixed idea of a structure.

• *Spirit (of man) a is that which makes us conscious of the reality of God and relates
us to God; for God-consciousness; resonates to the God’s Spirit and quickens the
soul. It is how a human being comes into resonance with the Spirit of God as long
as alive toward the very God. [Adjective – ‘spirital’b is preferred to ‘spiritual’
which belongs a different semantic field.] It is an aspect, not a component of a
person. The concept of ‘being holy’ does not pertain to human spirit. It quickens
when it resonates with holy Spirit of Elohim.
• *Soul c It is that which relates us to ourselves and is responsible for our self-
consciousness. [The English word ‘soul’ is used as a translation word. However,
as the meanings and usage it carries is not quite same, it is inadequate for accurate
rendering and often misleads. E.g. The expression ‘soul’ in the phrase ‘soul
immortality’, regardless how it is debated, actually not same as ‘soul’ used in Bible
translations. Biblically it is unbiblical, but in common parlance, it all depends on
how people understand and take it.] [Adjective – ‘soulical’ which carries a sense of
‘pertaining to soul’. In contrast, the word ‘soulish’ sounds more like ‘in a style of
soul’; ‘something like soul’. It rhymes with ‘ghoulish’.] [Heb. nephesh =
corresponding to Gk. psuchē – renders as ‘soul’ ‘life’ with sense of self in its
existence (not ‘life element of breathing’) and life experience.] [Soul is one’s
sacred self; not a separate entity from body and spirit. Cf. ‘Self-willed Sacred Self’
as the god of every human being until replaced by the Supreme and Almighty God-
being. Not to be confused with the notion of ‘the sacredness of the person’ (this is
also a book title by Hans Joas (2003). http://youtu.be/v4iYyqweKoE 2hrs] [Cf. Gk.
nous ‘mind’]
• *Body – In the Scripture it may simply refer to ‘physical body’ (of human beings
and animal), but it is mainly used in the sense of ‘physical life’ (bios) which is
carried with such physical body for various physiological functions, such as sensory
perception and movement and locomotion.] As such it is that which lets us be
related to the external world (physical environment); ‘world-consciousness’. [Cf.
spirital body vs. soulical body.] [Cf. figurative expression ‘corporate Body of the
Mashiah’ for the Messianic Community in whole.] [Adjective: ‘somatic’, rather
than physical which is outside the semantic field of ‘biological’] [Cf. Other use of
the word ‘body’ – e.g. the corporate body of the Mashiah = ekklesia ‘church’ (Body
of people of Mashiahn community)
[Cf. “And YHWH Elohim God went on to form the groundling (Heb. Adama;
‘man’) out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life,
and the man came to be a living being.” (Gen 2:7); “For dust you are and to dust
you will return.” (Gen 3:17; Cf. Ecc 12:7a)]
a

www.tripartiteman.org/
*body

Gk sōma (‘body’) - Used in literal as well as figurative sense, often in contrast to

or in conjunction with ‘soul’ (psuchē), ‘spirit’ (pneuma), ‘blood’ (haima). {Cf. ptōma -
‘corpse, dead body’ – Mt 14:12; 24:28; Mk 6:29; 15:45; Rev 11:9.] ‘Soma’ may be used
to denote the person, but itself is not person. Person is no soma.

• physical life with a body (physical and physiological) of a person (Mt

5:29, 1Co 5:3; 6:14ff; 7:4ff; 9:27, etc.), = ‘sanctuary of the holy Spirit’ –
1Co 6:19
• physical body of the Lord – 1Co 11:24, 27
• corporate body belonging to the Lord (Messianic Community – ‘church’)
– 1Co 11:29; = ‘temple sanctuary’ – 1Co 3:16-17
• soulical body vs. spirital body 1Co 15:44ff.

Cf. resurrection in body?

*soul

*soul

• Gk – psuchē;
• Hebrew – nephesh; Aramaic naphsha
• English – soul, life, etc.

The common English word soul is usually associated with ‘immortal dismembered soul’
– a Greek philosophical idea. As a translation word for the Bible this word carries with it
an unbiblical alien nuance.

a
‘spirit of man’ –
(Zec 12:1) “The word of YHWH to Israel — this is what is declared by YHWH, the One who stretched
out the heavens, who laid the foundation of the earth, and who formed the spirit of man within him:;
(Ecc 3:21) “Who does know whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down
into the earth?”;
(Ecc 12:7) “Then the dust goes back to the earth just as it was, and the spirit returns to Elohim who gave
it.”]
b
‘spirital’ - a neologism for an adjectival form of ‘of spirit’ to carry the sense of ‘concerning spirit’
‘related to spirit’, preferred to ‘spiritual’. Cf. The commonly used word ‘spiritual’ has somewhat different
nuance of ‘spiritualizing’, ‘full of spirit’, ‘in spiritual style/manner/attitude’ ‘of style of being in spirit’,
‘something like spirit’, ‘made of spirit (matter)’, ‘spiritualistic’, etc. Often the word ‘religious’ is used in
place of this word. Many nouns do not have suitable discerning adjectives and we have to utilize a
preposition or prepositional phrase – e.g. (1) ‘nature’ does not have a separate adjective for ‘belonging to
nature’ ‘of nature’ ‘concerning nature’ in distinction from ‘natural’. Similarly, (2) the word ‘beautiful’
does not mean ‘concerning beauty’ or ‘of beauty’. [E.g. Rm 7:14 ‘the Law as such is something spirital’
> ‘the Law is spiritual’ in most English translations.]
c
soul – [See Ref. Watchman Nee, Spiritual Man – Introductory note.]
 Though English, Greek and Hebrew words overlap in semantic fields, but not completely.
It is not possible to render in all cases as ‘soul’ [as in NWT] in a concordant manner. [Not
only human beings, but also animals (including) and even God (Zec 11:8) are referred to
‘nephesh’]

Various meaning and usage - ‘soul’, ‘(soulical) life’; not (physical biological) life (bios);
[Though the English word ‘life’ has much wider sense and includes ‘soul’, the Greek
psuchē (in a sense of one’s whole being) is much more than ‘(bodily) life’ ‘목숨’.

In essence ‘soul’ is the self. It is under spirit and it depends its function on the body. The
soul tied to the body rather than under spirit’s control is ‘fleshy’, since without being
guided by spirita, it is ever active in the state of humanity which is in sin. [Cf. In Korean
language ‘flesh’ 육 肉 in metaphor of ‘sex’ 색 色 in the negative connotation].

It cannot be rendered as ‘soul’ in wholesale fashion (as in NWT3 x72) (cf. x14 in NWT4)
– for N.T. Only in English idiom, it makes sense. The controversy of ‘soul immortality’
thus cannot be solved based on how the English word ‘soul’ is used in the Bibles! It is
one’s whole being in existence in the (created) world.

Heb. nephesh referring to Elohim

Old Testament - Hebrew: nephesh

And I [Yahweh] will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to
what is in My heart and in My soul. (1 Samuel 2:35).
Yahweh tests the righteous and the wicked, and His soul hates him that loves violence.
(Psalm 11:5).
There are six things which Yahweh hates, seven which are an abomination to His soul.
(Proverbs 6:16).
[Yahweh]: Your new moons and your scheduled feasts My soul hated. (Isaiah 1:14).
[Yahweh]: Behold, My servant-son, whom I uphold, My chosen one in whom My soul
approves.
Shall I [Yahweh] not punish these people," declares the LORD, "And on a nation such
as this shall My soul not avenge itself? (Jeremiah 5:9; cf. 5:29; 9:9)
[Yahweh]: Be warned, O Jerusalem, lest My soul be alienated from you. (Jeremiah 6:8).
I [Yahweh] have given the beloved of My soul into the hands of her enemies. (Jeremiah
12:7).

Have You [Yahweh] completely rejected Judah? Has Your soul abhorred Zion?
(Jeremiah 14:19).
Then Yahweh said to me, "Even though Moses and Samuel were to stand before Me,
My soul would not be with this people. (Jeremiah 15:1).
I [Yahweh] will rejoice over them to do them good and will faithfully plant them in this
land with all My heart and with all My soul. (Jeremiah 32:41).
[Yahweh]: And she uncovered her harlotries, And she revealed her nakedness, and My
soul turned away from her as My soul turned away from her sister. (Ezekiel 32:18).

a
‘spirit-guided’ – it cannot be guided by spirit, unless it is guided by the Scripture. What is guided by
human (ecclesial) tradition is only a religion which is devoid of spirit by definition. The Bible becomes
simply nothing weightier than something to justify their traditions.
 The Lord Yahweh has sworn by his own soul. (Amos 6:8).

New Testament - Greek: psuchē [‘I’ – NET, GW, GNB, ERV, ISV, NWT4]

[Yahweh]: Behold, My servant whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom My soul is

well pleased. (Mt 12:18).
[Yahweh]: But my righteous one shall live by faith and if he shrinks back, My soul has
no pleasure in him. (Heb 10:38).

*spirit

Hebrew expression: the breath of life ░░

ruach chayyim Gen 6:17; 7:15 [H7307 ruach breath, spirit, wind]
nishmat ruach chayyim Gen 7:22
nishmat chayyim Gen 2:7 [H5397 breath]
[H2416 chayyim life]
*spirit
• Greek – pneuma (neuter)
• Latin – spiritus (masculine)
• Heb – ruach (feminine)
• English – spirita (neu.)

[Related words and terms: spiritual vs. *spirital; spiritually vs. *spiritally, ‘in spirit’, ‘with
spirit’; spirituality, *spiritualitism, spiritualism, spiritism. (* - neologism)]

The word ‘spirit’ as a term which is for something supra-natural realm is difficult defined
and describe. A common English usage is seen in examples such as ‘spirit of our time’,
‘Spirit of St. Louis’ (a name of the airplane), ‘spirit of our effort’. In this sense it appears
in N.T. in a few places.

We should start from its basic meaning of ‘breath’b in Hebrew word ruach. [It is alien to
the Oriental thought of ‘void’ (공 空)]. It is not same as undefined ‘force’, ‘power’, or
‘energy’ – all these terms belong to natural realm. Spirit is best though of an element of
supra-natural realm which carries powers and exerts force and effects work. A notion of
person is not with the word. Often all the walks of life from scholars, theologians,
dogmaticians, and down to ordinary people, a literary device of personification is mistaken
as a proof of spirit being something of a person.

The divine spirit belonging to God - God’s spirit - is called ‘holy spirit’ in the Scripture.
The spirit of God is the living power and force which emanates from God. With the
definite article, ‘the holy Spirit’ is nothing other than what God Himself stands in His
power. Elohim expresses His will in His spirit into His action from His love to bring Life

a
Spirit is rendered in KJV some places as ‘*ghost’ in the phrase ‘Holy Ghost’.
b
Ruach – wind, spirit; “From the west shall they revere the name YHWH; from the rising of the sun His
glory. When the foe comes like a flood, the wind of YHWH shall lift up a banner against him.” (Isa 59:19)
“The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (Job 33:4) [See
‘spirit’ in WB #3-A]
and Light to the creation. In this sense, it is also the title of the God of the Scripture
(‘Elohim’). It is not a person who might be thought of standing (or being seated) next to
Elohim, as is easily conjured up from the Trinitarian formula.

Not confused with the use of the word in generic sense in English (such as philosophic
ideas, vital principle, man’s spirit, etc. - E.g. examples of phrases - ‘spirit of man’, ‘spirit
of the world’, ‘as to one’s spirit’.) This occurs less frequently in the N.T.

[See EE here for the Greek phrase ‘unclean spirit’ in the N.T. which is equivalent to
demonic spirit-force.1]

To be correct linguistically and literarily this word should take the neuter pronoun ‘it’ in
English throughout. Most English Bibles, however, have it take ‘he’ for the Greek phrase
to pneuma to hagion (Eng. – the holy Spirit; Heb – ruach kodesh). It is dictated by the
Trinitarian doctrine for the ‘Holy Spirit’ as the third person (or ‘Person) of the Trinity. It
is not as a way of personification (a figure of speech) which itself is sometimes seen in the
Scripture, though actually it is God Himself acting in power, not a being or person separate
and different from.

The English word may be shown as ‘spirit’ or ‘Spirit’, the latter is helpful only for the
readers, not for the hearers, as is followed by IRENT translation and typography:
(1) When used in generic sense (such as vital principle, man’s spirit, etc.) it is rendered
as ‘spirit’ – e.g. spirit of man, spirit of the world, as to one’s spirit.
(2) the phrase ‘unclean spirit’ in the text is equivalent to a demonic spirit.
(3) When the word is a part of the title, it is ‘Spirit’ – initial letter in capital, in the same
line as ‘SPIRIT’;
(4) When the word is used in reference to the very identity, the very SPIRIT OF GOD,
it is ‘Spirit’ with the initial in capital. ‘the Spirit of the Mashiah’. E.g. ‘the holy Spirit’
– which is capitalized as ‘the Holy Spirit’ only as a title, is the same line as ‘THE HOLY
SPIRIT’. This is not ‘force’ or ‘power’, which by itself belongs to the vocabulary of
physics, as if God gets some force from outside Himself or from something He created.
Nor it should be equated to ‘energy’ which is locked within matter (matter and energy
convertible between). Neither is it akin to something called ‘Force’, a personified entity
(as in New Ageism or deism). The notion of ‘holy spirit’ with or without the definite
article is same. It is in the context of God’s action that ‘the holy Spirit’ is at the start
point in God Himself and the holy Spirit is at the effect side of God’s action in power
(e.g. ‘gift of holy spirit’). At the semantic-discourse level, the definite article is closer
to the pronoun ‘that’, e.g. ‘the aforementioned holy spirit’, ‘the holy spirit specified in
the discourse. Thus, the presence of the definite does not imply it is a ‘person’, or a God
(as in ‘God the Holy Spirit). It is simply the God Himself at the point where God’s
power in action emanates, proceeds, radiates out.

Related expressions with ‘the spirit’: (excluding most of the anarthrous words) – See
Appendix for Word Study on SPIRIT and GHOST. [See elsewhere under the entry ‘*holy
spirit’ and ‘*Holy Ghost’]

Note: the phrase ‘Mashiah’s spirit’ in Rm 8:9; 1Pe 1:11 does not refer to ‘the Spirit of
Christ’ but spirit in us which Mashiah quickens (brings life to). [This holds same for
‘God’s spirit’ – not the Spirit of God – in Rm 8:9. It does not suggest the Spirit which
Mashiah has and which is distinct from the Spirit of God.]
blood

• also in metonym for ‘blood line’ (혈통 血統; 혈연 血緣), and in idiomatic
phrase ‘flesh and blood’ (Mt 16:17 – humanity); ‘body and blood’.
• as a possible metonym for ‘blood sacrifice’ (Act 15:20, 29; 21:25)
• ‘shed blood’ or ‘shedding blood to death’ (Mt 23:30ff) – carries symbolic
meaning related to ‘life’ and ‘death’. e.g. ‘drink the blood of the Son-of-man’
(Jn 6:53), ‘this is my blood of the new covenant’ (Mk 14:24).

Cf. blood sacrifice (of animals); Cf. blood atonement – O.T. – for certain sins.
“nephesh of haBasar is in its blood’ – Lev 17:11 (alluded in Heb 9:22) - prohibition
of eating blood (cf. pagan ritual of drinking sacrificed animals). [Heb. nephesh (‘soul’
‘life’; Gk. psuchē); Heb. haBasar (/animal creature; /x: the flesh - KJV; /xx: the body –
NLT; /x: a creature – NIV, HCSB).]
“… the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary
laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is
the only means for obtaining atonement. Lev 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't
eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."
www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
The OT concept of blood atonement functions as an ante-type or analogy of blood of
Yeshua shed in his self-giving love. It is not a proof-text for Christian doctrine of
‘blood of Jesus’ for atonement of sins – what sins? Whose sins? How so? How can a
human sacrifice be possible in the Scripture (e.g. as a pagan religious ritual)?

Cf. blood revenge; blood libel (anti-Semitism – Cf. Mt 27:25);

Heb. Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

Heb. korban

soul and blood:

Lev 17:4 ‘life (nephesh) of all flesh (basar) is in blood (dam)’]

http://youtu.be/rSZmghZJLIE Designed Chemistry of the Blood

blood, oxygen, Hemoglobin, circulation, respiration, life

transfusion;

flesh (sarx)
sarx – ‘flesh’ (soft part of the body, human, animal, or plant) – connotes ‘decay/corrupt’ –
it is used in figurative sense except a few places for its literal sense. – a chapter-length
subject by itself. Often rendered as ‘mortal flesh’ ‘flesh-and-blood’ to avoid connotation
to its literal sense.

Flesh –
• soft part of a body – 2:28;
• flesh-and-blood humanity; human being – Rm 1:3; 3:20; 4:1; 6:19; 7:18, 9:3,
5, 8; 11:14
• the things belonging to human reality > human nature – 7:5, 14, 25; 8:3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 12, 13; 13:14;

E.g. Act 2:17

And it will be in the last days, says Elohim,
<I will pour out [a share] of My spirit
upon all mortal beings of flesh-and-blood
and yoůr sons and yoůr daughters will prophesy …
[Most has not overcome difficulty of rendering this phrase epi pasan sarka: A
closest and simplest is ‘everyone’. Some render it in their own fantasy bordering on
a baloney. /≈ everyone – Cass, JNT, GW, GNB, ISV; /xx: all flesh – ESV trio,
KJV++, ASV, Wuest, PNT; /xx: all people – NET, ERV, NLT, NIV trio; /x: all
mankind – NASB, TCNT, AMP, GSNT, WNT; /all of humanity – ALT mg; />all
humanity – HCSB; /xx: all people [i.e., both Jews and Gentiles], - AUV; /xxx: every
sort of flesh – NWT; /xx: every kind of people – MSG.]

E.g. In Pauline Epistles it requires a rephrasing to bring the sense of ‘humanity’ and ‘human
nature’, not as something ‘sinful nature’ (as in NIV translation). The notion of ‘flesh’ does
not by itself means something sinful.

Rm 8:3 “Elohim sent His own Son in the likeness of human reality under sin”, not in
the likeness of ‘sinful flesh’ as most translations render. \(en omoiōmati) sarkos
hamartias; /flesh like ours under sin's domain – HCSB; /> a nature like our own sinful
one [but without sin] - JNT; /flesh of sin – Diagl; /x: sinful flesh – most; /x: sin’s flesh
– CLV; /죄 있는 육신 – Ko; /罪深い肉 – JSS;

Gal 1:16 ‘any of mortal flesh and blood’ [i.e. any of mere human being]; /flesh and
blood; /any human being – NET, NRSV, TNIV; /x: any human creature - Cass;
/anyone – HCSB, JNT, NIrV; /x: any man – NIV; /

See also in Jn 1:14 (incarnate); 1Tm 3:16 (manifest in flesh).

Pauline use of the terms in Romans; flesh sarx [vs. spirit – Rm 8:1, 8, 9, 12, 13; 9:8; body –
2:28]

Except few places where it is soft part of animal and human body, most are in figurative
sense corresponding to the human nature, or human being bound by the human nature. Often
the context tells this as something altered after Adam’s Fall, however, to render it as ‘sinful
 nature’ (e.g. NIV, TNIV, Wuest), or ‘old nature’ (JNT, also in a few places of NLT) is gone
beyond the bound of honest translation. /mere physical lives - AMP exp.;

Rm 7:5 (en tē sarki) – were living bound by the human reality – IRET; /be in the flesh –
most; /“in the flesh” – PNT; /be unspiritual – Mft; /lived in that old way of life – MSG;
/under the thralldom of our earthly nature – WNT; /in carne – Vulg; /in the sphere of sinful
nature – Wuest; /according to our old nature – JNT; /controlled by our old nature - NLT;
/living in the flesh – MRC; /

Cf. carnal sarkinos Rm 7:14; 8:7; 15:27

estin egō de sarkinos; /I on my part am bound by the human reality – IRENT; /
/carnal – PNT, Etheridge, KJV++, ASV, Murdock, EMTV; /fleshy – ALT, EBTV,
NWT; /xx: physical – GSNT; /> unspiritual – NET, WNT, Noyes; /of the flesh –
NRSV, BBE, MRC; /of flesh – NASB; / x: made out of flesh – HCSB; /bound to the
old nature – JNT; /(omit) x: I am not (holy) – NIrV; /(omit) I am not – MSG; /earthly
– TCNT; /x: mortal – GNB; /merely human – SIV; /all too human – NLT; /a creature
of flesh – Rhm; /a creature of the flesh – Mft; /a creature of the flesh [carnal,
unspiritual] – AMP; /mere flesh – ISV; /xx: merely a human – CEV; / [Note: “Flesh”
throughout this section refers to a person’s natural inclinations to sin]. – AUV exp;
/have a corrupt nature – GW; /육신에 속하여 – KRV (< 육신에 속해있어);
/육신적이어서 – KKJV; /罪ある 人間であり – JSS!; /

*Human being; human person; individual; personality, personhood;

Reading material: Sylvia Walsh (2018), Kierkegaard and Religion: Personality, Character, and
Virtue, [Prologue: The Art of Existing Religiously as a Self

[- a portion copied in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3B - Anthrolology &
'Person')>]

Quote from www.vision.org/node/4839 What Makes Us Human?

[cf. https://youtu.be/FMKELqouCyc Insight: What Makes Us Human? – human brain, human

mind and consciousness]

“…
The idea of the *soul and the *self comes from ancient Greek philosophy, not the Hebrew Bible.
According to professors Raymond Martin and John Barresi, “what Pythagoras and Empedocles
seem to have shared, and what they encouraged in thinkers who would come later, was belief
in a soul, or self, that existed prior to the body, that could be induced to leave the body even
while the body remained alive, and that would outlast the body” (The Rise and Fall of Soul and
Self: An Intellectual History of Personal Identity).

They go on to say that these thinkers in turn influenced Plato, then early church fathers such as
Augustine, and on down to “the entire mindset of Western civilization, secular as well as
religious.” The idea of the soul (which eventually came to be seen as a rational idea, they say)
“may have originated in the dark heart of shamanism, with its commitment to magic and the
occult.”

So what of the Hebrew account of consciousness, self-awareness and human uniqueness? What
does the Bible say? In the account of creation in the second chapter 1/3 of Genesis, we learn
from the Jewish Publication Society’s 1985 TaNaKh translation that “the Lord God formed
man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
living being” (Genesis 2:7). This differs from the King James Version of the Bible, whose
translators rendered the Hebrew word nephesh not as “a living being” but as “a living soul.”
The King James translators showed their bias toward the ancient Greek philosophers and the
early church fathers, for whom the soul was the essential part of the human being.
Unfortunately, according to the Hebrew, the “soul” of any person can never be anything but
material.

We have to recognize that the availability of more accurate Bible translations does not
necessarily bring in changes in established doctrine or popular belief. Even though it’s a
nonbiblical idea, the concept of the immortal soul has not disappeared from theological
discourse, from liturgical practice, or from everyday imagination.

…
He (Jon Levenson) comments that “the human being is not an amalgam of perishable body
and immortal soul, but a psychophysical unity who (< which) depends on God for life itself”
(Gen 2:7). This thinking is consistent with the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. The book of Job
makes a very clear statement in this regard: “It is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty,
that makes him understand” (Job 32:8, ESV). Here is an obvious connection with Gen 2:7, but
now the cognitive aspect of the human experience is referred to as “the spirit in man.” Its
function, originating with God, is to provide the human being with the capacity to understand.

The Bible also makes clear that both parts of the psychophysical unity stop at death. The book
of Psalms plainly states that when someone dies, “his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in
that very day his thoughts perish” (Psa 146:4, NASB). In the Hebrew wisdom book of
Ecclesiastes we find this, “The living know they will die [that is, by self-awareness]. But the
dead know nothing [no continuing post-death consciousness]; they have no more recompense,
for even the memory of them has died. Their loves, their hates, their jealousies have long since
perished” (Ecc 9:5–6a, Tanakh). Solomon, the likely author of Ecclesiastes, explains that
humans and animals meet the same fate: “As the one dies so dies the other” (Ecc 3:19, Tanakh).

What, then, becomes of this unique spirit in man at death? Solomon again explains, “The dust
returns to the ground as it was, and the life-breath returns to God who bestowed it” (Ecc 12:7,
Tanakh). According to this Hebrew perspective, there is no immortal soul and no immortal
“spirit in man” either. The body decays and the spirit returns to God.

The Jewish Encyclopedia adds this: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the
dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of
simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”

Despite the seeming finality of death for the psychophysical unity, termination of life was
nevertheless understood by the ancient Hebrews as temporary and as a kind of sleep. Later there
would come a time of awakening when the body would be reconstituted and the spirit revived.
This is what is called the resurrection.

The prophet Daniel writes about people who are raised to live or die forever: “And many of
those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame
and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2). Daniel himself is told that he will “rest [or die] and will
arise [or be resurrected] . . . at the end of the days [far in the future]” (Dan 12:13). But none of
 these references speak about an immortal soul, only about the raising of previously physical
people who have ceased to exist for a period of time.

When you ask the question “What makes us human from a biblical point of view?” it is this
God-given “spirit in man.” We are not the same as animals, but neither are we physical bodies
inhabited by immortal souls. The spirit in man is a nonphysical component that makes us
uniquely human, one that returns to God at death and is not conscious, but awaits resurrection
according to God’s plan.”

On *human being; *man

to be human’ ‘being a human’ > ‘humanity’; person, personhood (/x: penalty)

‘human being’ but not ‘human person’? – some claims so for Jesus!

Ref. Edwin Hui, (2002) At the Beginning of Life. [Part One: Foundations of Human
Personhood, pp. 35- 160]

Issues of human life – religious, philosophical, moral, cultural and political.

Ref. Fr. Robert Spitzer (2011), Ten Universal Principles – A Brief Philosophy of the
Life Issues

Humanity; human society; human living

Cf. https://youtu.be/GhGno2BIts0 Planet Ant - Life Inside The Colony (Ant
Documentary) Made by the BBC

*Human being; human person; personality, personhood; human nature;

*man; *mankind; *humanity;

*human being; (human person); *man; *mankind; *humanity;

Homo sapiens; Homo potestas et hedonicus; Adamic nature; SATAN = Spirit After Total
Adamic Nature.

Its purpose at the biological level is to preserve – (i) the individual and (ii) the species. At
the level of human person it has the goal in pursuit of power and pleasure – power to
possess over others and to take from others. P-words: Pride, praise; power, privilege,
prerogative; possession, position; prosperity; peddling, promoting-self; propaganda;
promises;

Related words:

person, people, man (cf. men, male, husband in Gk and Aramaic); human; human being, human person a;
humankind; mankind; humanity; people, race, ethnic; generation; person; I; self; The semantic fields of
‘men’ and ‘people’ does not overlap completely. Problem of gender inclusiveness.

a
Trinitarian gobbledygook - ‘God has substance with which God is composed of’; Gk. homoiousia vs.
homoousia for ‘Jesus’; ‘hypostasis’; Lat. persona; ‘Jesus is a divine person, not a human person’, ‘Fully
God and fully man’ (If fully God, he cannot be man; if fully man, he cannot be God??), ‘He is God’; ‘He is
 ethnology; anthropology; ethnic anthropology; cultural ~
anthropology of religion
metaphysical anthropology vs. metaphysics of anthropology vs. anthropology of metaphysics;
ontology
philosophical anthropology (anthropological philosophy)
tripartite anthropology – cf. 1Th 5:23
[References on the related terms of anthropology, EE here.2]

‘*heart’ ‘mind’ ‘thinking’ ‘conscience’’

‘heart’ (not an organ in the body) is used in N.T. not just a seat of emotion and feeling; but
involves experiencing in life; tightly interwoven and synonymous with ‘mind’.]

‘in heart’ (tē kardia) – Mt 5:8; 11:29;

‘out of the heart’ (ek tēs kardias) – Mt 12:34; 15:19;
‘in the heart’ (en tē kardia) – Mt 5:28; 13:29;
‘into the heart’ (eis tē kardia) – Mk 7:19.

Idiomatic phrase – ‘in the heart of the land’ – Mt 12:40 (in the sense of ‘center’ – here,
the city of Yerusalem as the heart/navel of the land/earth)

Two words ‘heart’ and ‘mind’ are used in one expression – Mt 22:37; //Mk 12:30; //Lk
10:27 – ‘Love YHWH your Elohim (> the Lord your God) with all your heart’ (en holē
tē kardia) and ‘with all your mind’ (en holē tē dianoia).

Jer 11:20; 20:2 (thoughts ‘kidney’; heart); 17:9-10 (heart; thoughts, ‘kidney’); Psa 17:2-
3 (heart):

Heb. H3629 ‘kidney’ ‘thoughts’ ‘mind’

Gk. kardia is close to ‘mind’ (seat of thinking) than ‘heart’ as the seat of feeing. E.g. Mt
5:8 ‘pure in mind’ vs. ‘pure in heart’ –most (cf. in Korean no equivalent idiom to English
one.) /마음이 순수한 자 – KKJV; /마음이 청결한 자 - KRV; /

‘Heart’ is the depth of a soul (i.e., person’s being) where thought, will, and feelings are in
(nuclear) fusion, so to speak.

[the capacity and working of] ‘human mind’ – is what makes us human being, not animal or
android.

‘being’ ‘person’ ‘man’ ‘human being’ ‘human person’ ‘personhood’

both God and man’; ‘He is God-man’; ‘He is God the Son’.. [Cf. the Son of Elohim, the title for Yeshua the
Mashiah); [Note: the ‘Jesus’ of (Christian) religions is not same as Yeshua of the New Testament.]
‘A human being’ vs. ‘a human person’ vs. ‘being human’
‘Someone is a divine person’ cannot logically stand if someone is referred to God
himself. Since God is God, it cannot be said He is ‘divine’. Note: personality is a
psychological term and has nothing to do with person, personhood, or being a person.

Related terms: selfhood; self-identity; Ego; personality, character, person, personhood,

personable; selfishness3; selfism, egoism, I vs. we;a

Problem of the concept of self.

soul’ ‘self’ ‘one’s being’

Self and negation of self:

• Gk psuchē (Mt 16:25; //Mk 8:35; //Lk 9:24); ‘whole being’ (> ‘soul’, ‘self’ ‘one’s being’
>> ‘life’ which is for Gk bios. Cf. Gk zōē ‘Love’ (capitalized in IRENT) > ‘love’).
• Gk. heautou ‘one’s (very) self; oneself’ Mt 16:24; //Mk 8:34; //Lk 9:23. (Cf. Mt 10:38-
39) – “Say 'No' to your very self [+ of being one’s own Lord and Master]”
• Gk psuchē (Mt 16:25; //Mk 8:35; /Lk 9:24); ‘whole being’ (‘soul’, ‘life’)

[Man’s most basic instinct is the preservation and fulfillment of self. So bittul (in Yiddish) is
the negation of self before a greater reality, goes against the very grain of human nature: the
attainment of bittul is a “miracle,” a supernatural transformation. Nevertheless, for this chassid,
bittul did not imply the obliteration of identity; rather, it was the slow, gradual divestment of
the “I” of its egocentric tendencies and its reorientation toward a higher, bittul-suffused identity.
In the “supernatural miracle” mode, bittul means lack of identity; as a “natural miracle,” bittul
is in finding (– ARJ) the person’s true identity.
www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/46079/jewish/Three-Natural-Miracles.htm]
[Not related to asceticism, escapism, anti-hedonism, victim mentality, etc. Nor the common
English idiom of ‘giving one’s life’]
[To say ‘No’ to one’s very self is ‘self-abnegation’ - the negation of self before a greater reality,
going against the very grain of human nature. Not the obliteration of identity but slow, gradual
divestment of the “I” of its egocentric tendencies and its reorientation toward a higher, self-
negation-suffused identity.]

a
I vs. we – The “I” in most philosophies, psychologies, and religions. However the I for the
Mashiah-followers has lost its core sense, since ‘It is no longer I that live, but Mashiah lives in
me’ (as Paul confessed in Gal 2:20). Any I-statements should be interpreted as we-statements.
(There is no such thing as ‘I go to heaven when I die’ in the Bible.) Even though there is a
heavy emphasis on salvation of each individual, as if salvation is something a person acquires
or achieves. In the Gospel, a person joins the Kingdom reign of Elohim as it comes to us to
‘enter into’ the movement of the Spirit. As as we who join, it makes a true sense of ‘I enter the
Kingdom reign’. Even in existential understanding of our human – person and humanity – I
exist only to others. As human being is a social being, ‘I alone exists’ is logically, practically,
and philosophically a nonsensical statement. For example, to achieve enlightenment and enter
into nirvana, it is only I that is the subject. There is no meaningful we-relation in nirvana.
 *psyche – “By the term psyche we do not understand a substance, but the organic whole of all
so-called ‘mental’ actions and reactions; these never come under external observation, but have
to be partly inferred from physical signs, partly observed by the so-called inner sense. …” from
Hans Vaihinger (1911), The Philosophy of ‘As If’ ( translated into English by CK Ogden 1968),
p. 1 - online Hans Vaihinger - The Philosophy of as If - Scribd .

Human nature
Human nature is that which makes us distinctly human. In most Bible translations, this
word does not appear.

Cf. the Greek sarx (‘flesh’) is translated often as ‘human nature’ in paraphrase bibles such
as GNB, GW, ISV. Cf. NET has it in two places Jn 6:63; Phi 2:7. As the phrase ‘sinful
nature’ - Rm 8:3 (GNB); Rm 13:14 (GNB, GW).]

Ref: Joel Green (2008), Body, Soul, and Human Life – the nature of humanity in the
Bible.

www.theopedia.com/humanity

[definition and concept of ‘humanity’ –

quality or status of being human; all human beings collectively?]

human reality; purpose of human life;
human being vs. human person
mankind; manhood/adulthood;
Ensoulment ? ‘pre-existing soul’ and reincarnation

‘Body, soul and spirit ties’, referred to as "Soul-ties". www.daniel-trust-

ministries.org/ties/

doctrine of humanity = anthropology

trichotomous vs. dichotomous views of human nature
biblical anthropology

• Man – a living soul – created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27).

• Man has a material aspect (‘body’) and a non-material aspect, ‘spirit’ (Jas
2:26).
• Man is in God’s image, but in fallen status; born in alienated state. (Gen 9:6 –
Adam’s Fall).

/x: Man is a fallen creature; /x: born in a corrupt state; /x: depravity – (Calvinism’s
TULIP www.reformed.org/calvinism/ Cf. https://carm.org/dictionary-five-points-
arminianism );
 Man is evil in his nature? A human being is sinful? is born sinful in nature? How so?
Because the parent is sinful? Or becomes sinful? Right after conception? Or ‘conceived
in sin’ (Psa 51:5)? Mother’s sin? My sin? So – what does it mean? Sin is an act and a
disrupted relationship to God; how can ‘sin’ is in ‘nature’? What is ‘nature’ of man which
is or becomes sinful?

• ‘sinful’: hamartōlos
Mk_8:38; Lk_5:8; 24:7; (sinful men)
Rm_7:13; (sin becomes exceedingly sinful)
• ‘in sin’: Rm_8:3 (flesh is in sin);

www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3749 Problematic
Concept of a sinful human nature.

‘Jesus does not have sinful nature’? How so? By virgin birth without being from a seed of
man with sinful nature? But born of Mary, a virgin – Mary does not have sinful nature,
does she? Jesus did not sin – because he was immune to sin? He did not sin, simply because
he could not? Is it the meaning of ‘sinless man’? or actually he was a sinless god, ‘God-
man’? Not carrying a sin DNA? [cf. immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, Mother
of God, etc. in Catholic language.]
Cf. problem of the original sin doctrine.

https://physicalspace.wordpress.com/huma-nature/
Human nature is a complex whole formed by the interaction of multiple
elements. The elements that forms human nature can be separated in
four main groups: human emotions, capacities, faculties and a set of
eight fundamental dimensions given by:
. a developmental nature . a social nature . an hedonistic nature . a
sexual nature . an economic nature . a nature of self-preservation . a
competitive nature . and a personality

Related question:
What is original sin? What is the sin nature? What is the origin of sin?
What is the flesh?
Cf. ‘man created in the image of God’.

*body; *soul’; *spirit; *blood; *flesh; *psyche

Gk sōma (‘body’) - Used in literal as well as figurative sense, often in contrast to or in

conjunction with ‘soul’ (psuchē), ‘spirit’ (pneuma), ‘blood’ (haima). {Cf. ptōma - ‘corpse,
dead body’ – Mt 14:12; 24:28; Mk 6:29; 15:45; Rev 11:9.]
• physical body of a person (Mt 5:29, 1Co 5:3; 6:14ff; 7:4ff; 9:27, etc.), =
‘sanctuary of the holy Spirit’ – 1Co 6:19
 • physical body of the Lord – 1Co 11:24, 27
• corporate body belonging to the Lord (Messianic Community – ‘church’) –
1Co 11:29; = ‘temple sanctuary’ – 1Co 3:16-17
• soulical body vs. spirital body 1Co 15:44ff.

*Soul problem

Soul.
(in Appendix of NWT)

The traditional rendering of the Hebrew word nephesh and the Greek word
‘psuchē’.
In examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it becomes evident that
they basically refer to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an
animal has. (Gen 1:20; 2:7; Num 31:28; 1Pe 3:20; also ftns.)
In contrast to the way that the term “soul” is used in many religious contexts, the
Bible shows that both nephesh and ‘psuchē, in connection with earthly creatures,
refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

In this translation [= NWT], these original language words have most often been
rendered according to their meaning in each context, using such terms as “life,”
“creature,” “person,” “one’s whole being,” or simply as a personal pronoun (for
example, “I” for “my soul”). In most cases, footnotes give the alternative
rendering “soul.” When the term “soul” is used, either in the main text or in
footnotes, it should be understood in line with the above explanation. When
referring to doing something with one’s whole soul, it means to do it with one’s
whole being, wholeheartedly, or with one’s whole life. (Due 6:5; Mt 22:37) In
some contexts, these original-language words can be used to refer to the desire
or appetite of a living creature. They can also refer to a dead person or a dead
body.—Num 6:6; Prv 23:2; Isa 56:11; Hag 2:13

‘soul’ in English; ‘psuchē’ in Gk; ‘nephesh’ in Hebrew do not have same semantic
field in each language and thought.

"nephesh" which is the soul that makes possible life, and all that is required for the
functioning of a life form. Human beings alone are given a "neshama", which is a
far higher, and what differentiates man from the animals. Man of course also has a
nephesh. A higher level of soul than the nephesh is the "ruach", which is often
translated as "spirit", or "wind." It is very much tied to the emotions.

‘soul immortality’ is not about ‘soul’ as the word is used in the Bible translations;
nor ‘immortal’ in the Bible which belongs only to ‘God’.
Arguments for and against ‘soul immortality’ cannot be settled unless both sides first
find the precise definition of the terms to provide common ground to lead to common
 understanding. ‘Soul’ is often synonymous or metonymic of ‘person self’ or ‘spirit’
or ‘life’.

Soul as a translation word: Since the word ‘soul’ in English usage is different from the Greek
word ‘psuchē’, translation cannot be done properly until we determine how the word in the
text is used in its context. E.g. as the English word in ‘soul immortality’ is NOT same as
‘soul’ in the Bible translations. [People are in fact barking at wrong trees, in their claims and
arguments. The former instance refers to what they claim to be immortal part of a person;
the latter refers to ‘one’s self’ ‘one’s life’, even one’s spirit. It can be safely used in idiomatic
phrases (e.g. ‘many souls are rescued’, ‘save our souls’, ‘my soul rejoices’, etc.). ‘To save a
soul’ means more than saving a life; but the context can allow the text to be translated as
‘save a life’ over ‘save a soul’. The usage, tone, intention, literary genre (e.g. poetic, rhetoric,
etc.).

spirit; soul; body

The terms should not be understood as distinct separate entities or concepts but aspects of
a person as related to the other (others and external world). Rather than a concentric circle
with the center one to represent ‘spirit’, which is better than a circle divided by three, but
concentric three discs placed on the one axis in the center (representing the center of the
person) – need a diagram.

Ref. Wali van Lohuizen (2011), A Psycho-Spiritual View on the Message of Jesus in the Gospels:
Presence and Transformation in Some Logia as a Sign of Mysticism.

Related terms and phrases: *self, *selfhood; *self-identity; Ego; personality, character,
person, personhood, personable; selfishness4; selfism, egoism, ‘I’ vs. ‘we’a; psyche. Identity
crisis.
Ref. Paul Ricoeur (1995), Oneself as Another [ Cf.
http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/55/55.3/55.3.2.pdf ]

‘Who am I’, ‘Who is he’, ‘Who is that’, ‘What do we say He is’, ‘What do we make of him’
[Cf. www.blts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MKS-I-Am.pdf ]

a
I vs. we – The “I” in most philosophies, psychologies, and religions. However the I for the
Mashiah-followers has lost its core sense, since ‘It is no longer I that live, but Mashiah lives in
me’ (as Paul confessed in Gal 2:20). Any I-statements should be interpreted as we-statements.
(There is no such thing as ‘I go to heaven when I die’ in the Bible.) Even though there is a
heavy emphasis on salvation of each individual, as if salvation is something a person acquires
or achieves. In the Gospel, a person joins the Kingdom reign of Elohim as it comes to us to
‘enter into’ the movement of the Spirit. As as we who join, it makes a true sense of ‘I enter the
Kingdom reign’. Even in existential understanding of our human – person and humanity – I
exist only to others. As human being is a social being, ‘I alone exists’ is logically, practically,
and philosophically a nonsensical statement. For example, to achieve enlightenment and enter
into nirvana, it is only I that is the subject. There is no meaningful we-relation in nirvana.
 *Tripartite structure of human being; ‘Tripartite man’

[Note: different people proposing the same idea of tripartite anthropology actually have
different idea about what is meant by spirit, body, and, in particular, soul. Here is one
example which is neutral from religious traditions (influenced by native religions and
paganism).] Such anthropology is no more than a good simplistic way of explaining away,
since the reality cannot be compartmentalized.

[Cf. 1Th 5:23 – these three elements appear in one verse.] [For three expressions God-, self-
and world-consciousness – C.I. Scofield] [Not to be confused with tripartite structure of
human personality – id, ego and super-ego – in psychology and psychoanalysis.]

• *Spirit (of man) a is that which makes us conscious of the reality of God and relates
us to God; for God-consciousness; resonates to the God’s Spirit and quickens the soul.
It is how a human being comes into resonance with the Spirit of God as long as alive
toward the very God. [Adjective – ‘spirital’b is preferred to ‘spiritual’ which belongs
a different semantic field]
• *Soul is that which relates us to ourselves and is responsible for our self-
consciousness; [Adjective – ‘soulical’ which carries a sense of ‘pertaining to soul’. In
contrast, the word ‘soulish’ sounds more like ‘in a style of soul’; ‘something like soul’.
It rhymes with ‘ghoulish’.] [Heb. nephesh = corresponding to Gk psuchē – renders as
‘soul’ ‘life’ with sense of self in its existence (not ‘life element of breathing’; not
‘physical life’. Cf. Gk zōē) and life experience.]
[Often in the biblical text it is use in the basic metonymic sense of ‘a person’ – E.g.
especially in Rev 6:9; 20:4 where the translated word ‘soul’ is easy to bring up a
non-biblical picture of dismembered soul/sprit.]
[We should first take the word ‘soul’ as a neutral common English word, before we
get hung up with it as a religious or theological jargon. As in the phrases, ‘in the depths
of my soul’ etc.]

a
‘spirit of man’ –
(Zec 12:1) “The word of YHWH to Israel — this is what is declared by YHWH, the One who
stretched out the heavens, who laid the foundation of the earth, and who formed the spirit of
man within him:;
(Ecc 3:21) “Who does know whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast
goes down into the earth?”;
(Ecc 12:7) “Then the dust goes back to the earth just as it was, and the spirit returns to Elohim
who gave it.”]
b
‘spirital’ - a neologism for an adjectival form of ‘of spirit’ to carry the sense of ‘concerning
spirit’ ‘related to spirit’, preferred to ‘spiritual’. Cf. The commonly used word ‘spiritual’ has
somewhat different nuance of ‘spiritualizing’, ‘full of spirit’, ‘in spiritual style/manner/attitude’
‘of style of being in spirit’, ‘something like spirit’, ‘made of spirit (matter)’, ‘spiritualistic’, etc.
Often the word ‘religious’ is used in place of this word. Many nouns do not have suitable
discerning adjectives and we have to utilize a preposition or prepositional phrase – e.g. (1)
‘nature’ does not have a separate adjective for ‘belonging to nature’ ‘of nature’ ‘concerning
nature’ in distinction from ‘natural’. Similarly, (2) the word ‘beautiful’ does not mean
‘concerning beauty’ or ‘of beauty’. [E.g. Rm 7:14 ‘the Law as such is something spirital’ > ‘the
Law is spiritual’ in most English translations.]
 [Cf. a common expression with ‘find, save, lose, forfeit, preserve one’s soul’: Mt 10:39
find ~ lose ~ find; //Mk 16:35 save ~ lose ~ save; //Lk 9:24 save ~ lose ~ lose ~ save;
//Lk 9:25 lose or forfeit; //Lk 17:33 save ~ lose ~ preserve. (find heuriskō; lose
appolumi; save sozō; forfeit zēmioō (not same as ‘lose’); preserve zoōgoneō)

• *Body – is that which causes us to be related to the external world (physical

environment); ‘world-consciousness’. [Cf. spirital body vs. soulical body. Cf.
figurative expression ‘corporate Body of the Mashiah’ for the Messianic Community
in whole.] [Adjective: ‘somatic’, rather than physical which is outside the semantic
field of ‘biological’]
[Cf. “And YHWH Elohim God went on to form the groundling (Heb. Adama;
‘man’) out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of
life, and the man came to be a living being.” (Gen 2:7); “For dust you are and
to dust you will return.” (Gen 3:17; Cf. Ecc 12:7a)]

A human being is not to be pictured like a *tripartite structure as if composed of three

elements/ compartments. Nor it is as a three concentric circle (with the spirit as innermost
and the body as outermost circle), but three discs stacked (largest bottom one as the body
with fastest linear speed and the top smallest one as the spirit rotating slowest speed)
rotating together around a common axis. It is dynamic descriptive term of function, not a
static fixed idea of a structure.

*soula

• Gk – psuchē; [from which the English word ‘psyche’ is derived, but used as a semi-
technical term with different sense.
• Hebrew – nephesh; Aramaic naphsha
• English – rendered in the Bible translations, as soul, life, etc.

Though English, Greek and Hebrew words overlap in semantic fields, but not completely. It
is not possible to render in all cases as ‘soul’ [as in NWT] in a concordant manner. [Not only
human beings, but also animals (including) and even God (Zec 11:8) are referred to ‘nephesh’]

Various meaning and usage - ‘soul’, ‘(soulical) life’; not (physical biological) life (bios);
[Though the English word ‘life’ has much wider sense and includes ‘soul’, the Greek psuchē
(in a sense of one’s whole being) is much more than ‘(bodily) life’ ‘목숨’.

a
soul – [See Ref. Watchman Nee, Spiritual Man – Introductory note.]

Quoted from Wali van Lohuizen (2011)

… Psuchē appears as ‘self’ (‘mind-and-heart’) rather than as ‘life,’ for example, in the Good
Shepherd passage (dedicating one’s self), or in the saving and losing logia in Mark 8.35 par,
calling for transformation. Pneuma in the Gospels appears both in a definite form and indefinitely:
next to the Holy Spirit, there is holy spirit active and present, implying that baptism literally is
immersing in holy spirit.
 The word ‘soul’ is not same word everywhere as it occurs and is used, whether in the Bible,
or in common speech. It may be perfectly acceptable (as other than theological jargon) to hear
in a common idiom or poetic phrases. E.g. ‘save our souls’. However, the expression ‘forfeit
their soul’ (Mk 8:36 KJV, ESV, NIV) would not make any sense to those outside Churchianity.
Such rendering as ‘loss of his soul’ (DRB), ‘forfeit his life’ (ASV, NET), ‘lose your life’
(GNB), would not make it easier.

In essence ‘soul’ is the self. It is under spirit and it depends its function on the body. The soul
tied to the body rather than under spirit’s control is ‘fleshy’, since without being guided by
spirita, it is ever active in the state of humanity which is in sin. [Cf. In Korean language ‘flesh’
육 肉 in metaphor of ‘sex’ 색 色 in the negative connotation].

*spirit

[Related words and terms: spiritual, spiritually, ‘in spirit’, ‘with spirit’; *spirital, *spiritally,
spirituality, *spiritualitism, spiritualism, spiritism. (* - neologism)]

[See elsewhere under the entry ‘* holy spirit’ and ‘* Holy Ghost’] [Related expressions with ‘the
spirit’: (excluding most of the anarthrous words)]

• Greek – pneuma (neuter)

• Latin – spiritus (masculine)
• Heb – ruach (feminine)
• English – spiritb (neu.)

The word ‘spirit’ as a term which is for something supra-natural realm is difficult defined and
describe. A common English usage is seen in examples such as ‘spirit of our time’, ‘Spirit of St.
Louis’ (a name of the airplane), ‘spirit of our effort’. In this sense it appears in N.T. in a few
places.

We should start from its basic meaning of ‘breath’c in Hebrew word ruach. [It is alien to the
Oriental thought of ‘void’]. It is not same as undefined ‘force’, ‘power’, or ‘energy’ – all these
terms belong to natural realm. Spirit is best though of an element of supra-natural realm which
carries powers and exerts force and effects work. A notion of person is not with the word. Often

a
‘spirit-guided’ – it can not be guided by spirit, unless it is guided by the Scripture. Guided by
human (Church) tradtion is only a religion which is devoid of spirit by definition. The Bible
becomes simply nothing weighier than something to justify their traditions.
b
Spirit is rendered in KJV uses *ghost’ (un-biblical word from the language of primitive or pagan
religious ideas) to translate ‘spirit’ as in the phrase ‘Holy Ghost’ (x29 places – as in DRB. Also to
translate ‘expire (i.e. die) as ‘give up the ghost’ (in x8 places) (Mt 27:50; //Mk 15:37, 39; //Lk
13:46; //Jn 19:30. Also in Act 5:5, 10; 12:23
Cf. Gk phantasma – KJV renders as ‘spirit’; many (ASV, ESV, NET, etc.) as unbiblical word
‘ghost’; some correctly as apparition. (Mt 14:26 etc.)
Cf. in Bishops as ‘holy ghost’; in Geneva as ‘holy Ghost’. As Holy Ghost in one place (Act 10:47)
in MKJV (prob. from leftover from KJV).
c
Ruah – wind, spirit; “From the west shall they revere the name YHWH; from the rising of the sun
His glory. When the foe comes like a flood, the wind of YHWH shall lift up a banner against him.”
(Isa 59:19)
all the walks of life from scholars, theologians, dogmaticians, and down to ordinary people, a
literary device of personification is mistaken as a proof of spirit being something of a person.
Personification (of such as God’s spirit – e.g. Jn 14:26 –, the Torah, the Church, etc. is not
idendication of being a person). The pronoun for the ‘Helper’ (parakletos -- the Spirit) has
nothing to do with something being a ‘person’, nor its gender.

The divine spirit belonging to God - God’s spirit - is called ‘holy spirit’ in the Scripture. The spirit
of God is the living power and force which emanates from God. With the definite article, ‘the
holy Spirit’ is nothing other than what God Himself stands in His power. Elohim expresses His
will in His spirit into His action from His love to bring Life (Gk zōē; not psuchē ‘soul’, ‘life’,
etc..) and Light to the created world and beings. In this sense, it is also the title of the God of the
Scripture (‘Elohim’). It is not a person who might be thought of standing (or being seated) next
to Elohim, as is easily conjured up from the Trinitarian formula.

Not confused with the use of the word in generic sense in English (such as philosophic ideas, vital
principle, man’s spirit, etc. - E.g. examples of phrases - ‘spirit of man’, ‘spirit of the world’, ‘as
to one’s spirit’.) This occurs less frequently in the N.T.

[See EE here for the Greek phrase ‘unclean spirit’ in the N.T. which is equivalent to demonic
spirit-force.5]

To be correct linguistically and literarily this word should take the neuter pronoun ‘it’ in English
throughout. Most English Bibles, however, have it take ‘he’ (why takes as masculine gender?) for
the Greek phrase to pneuma to hagion (Eng. – the holy Spirit; Heb – ruach kodesh). It is dictated
by the Trinitarian doctrine for the ‘Holy Spirit’ as the third person (or ‘Person) of the Trinity. It
is not as a way of personification (a figure of speech) which itself is sometimes seen in the
Scripture, though actually it is God Himself acting in power, not a being or person separate and
different from.

The English word may be shown as ‘spirit’ or ‘Spirit’, the latter is helpful only for the readers,
not for the hearers, as is followed by IRENT translation and typography:
(1) When used in generic sense (such as vital principle, man’s spirit, etc.) it is rendered as
‘spirit’ – e.g. spirit of man, spirit of the world, as to one’s spirit. With ‘a spirit’ it is often less
clear from ‘a soul’, or even ‘a ghost’.

(2) the phrase ‘unclean spirit’ in the text is equivalent to a demonic spirit.
(3) When the word is a part of the title, it is ‘Spirit’ – capitalized, in the same line as ‘SPIRIT’;
(4) When the word is used in reference to the very identity, the very SPIRIT OF GOD, it is
‘Spirit’ capitalized. ‘the Spirit of the Mashiah’. E.g. ‘the holy Spirit’ – which is capitalized as
‘the Holy Spirit’ only as a title, is the same line as ‘THE HOLY SPIRIT’. This is not ‘force’
or ‘power’, which by itself belongs to the vocabulary of physics, as if God gets some force
from outside Himself or from something He created. Nor it should be equated to ‘energy’ which
is locked within matter (matter and energy convertible between). Neither is it akin to something
called ‘Force’, a personified entity (as in New Ageism or deism). The notion of ‘holy spirit’
with or without the definite article is same. It is in the context of God’s action that ‘the holy
Spirit’ is at the start point in God Himself and ‘the holy Spirit’ is at the effect side of God’s
action in power (e.g. ‘gift of holy spirit’). At the semantic-discourse level, the definite article
is closer to the pronoun ‘that’, e.g. ‘the aforementioned holy spirit’, ‘the holy spirit specified
in the discourse. Thus, the presence of the definite does not imply it is a ‘person’, or a God (as
in ‘God the Holy Spirit). It is simply the God Himself at the point where God’s power of love
for creation is in act, which itself emanates, proceeds, radiates out.
 Note: the phrase ‘Mashiah’s spirit’ in Rm 8:9; 1Pe 1:11 does not refer to ‘the Spirit of Christ’
but spirit in us which Mashiah quickens (brings life to). [This holds same for ‘God’s spirit’ – not
the Spirit of God – in Rm 8:9. It does not suggest the Spirit which Mashiah has and which is
distinct from the Spirit of God.]

*blood; *flesh

blood

• also in metonym for ‘blood line’ (혈통 血統; 혈연 血緣), and in idiomatic phrase ‘flesh
and blood’ (Mt 16:17 – humanity); ‘body and blood’.
• as a possible metonym for ‘blood sacrifice’ (Act 15:20, 29; 21:25)
• ‘shed blood’ or ‘shedding blood to death’ (Mt 23:30ff) – carries symbolic meaning
related to ‘life’ and ‘death’. e.g. ‘drink the blood of the Son-of-man’ (Jn 6:53), ‘this is
my blood of the new covenant’ (Mk 14:24).

Cf. blood sacrifice (of animals); Cf. blood atonement – O.T. – for certain sins. “nephesh of
haBasar is in its blood’ – Lev 17:11 (alluded in Heb 9:22) - prohibition of eating blood (cf.
pagan ritual of drinking sacrificed animals). [Heb. nephesh (‘soul’ ‘life’; Gk. psuchē); Heb.
haBasar (/animal creature; /x: the flesh - KJV; /xx: the body – NLT; /x: a creature – NIV,
HCSB).]
“… the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary
laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood
is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased
as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat
blood." www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
The OT concept of blood atonement functions as an ante-type or analogy of blood
of Yeshua shed in his self-giving love. It is not a proof-text for Christian doctrine of
‘blood of Jesus’ for atonement of sins – what sins? Whose sins? How so? How can
a human sacrifice be possible in the Scripture (e.g. as a pagan religious ritual)?

Cf. blood revenge; blood libel (anti-Semitism – Cf. Mt 27:25);

Heb. Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

Heb. korban

Pauline use of the terms in Romans;

*flesh sarx [vs. spirit – Rm 8:1, 8, 9, 12, 13; 9:8; body – 2:28]

Except few places where it is soft part of animal and human body, most are in figurative sense
corresponding to the human nature, or human being bound by the human nature. Often the
context tells this as something altered after Adam’s Fall, however, to render it as ‘sinful nature’
(e.g. NIV, TNIV, Wuest), or ‘old nature’ (JNT, also in a few places of NLT) is gone beyond the
bound of honest translation. /mere physical lives - AMP exp;
Rm 7:5 (ēn en tē sarki) – were living bound by the human reality – IRET; /be in the flesh – most;
/“in the flesh” – PNT; /be unspiritual – Mft; /lived in that old way of life – MSG; /under the
thralldom of our earthly nature – WNT; /in carne – Vulg; /in the sphere of sinful nature – Wuest;
/according to our old nature – JNT; /controlled by our old nature - NLT; /living in the flesh –
MRC; /

Flesh –
• soft part of a body – 2:28;
• flesh-and-blood humanity; human being – Rm 1:3; 3:20; 4:1; 6:19; 7:18, 9:3, 5, 8;
11:14
• the things belonging to human reality > human nature – 7:5, 14, 25; 8:3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 12, 13; 13:14;

Cf. carnal sarkinos Rm 7:14; 8:7; 15:27

estin egō de sarkinos; /I on my part am bound by the human reality – IRENT; /
/xx: physical – GSNT; /> unspiritual – NET, WNT, Noyes; /of the flesh – NRSV, BBE,
MRC; /of flesh – NASB; / x: made out of flesh – HCSB; /bound to the old nature – JNT;
/(omit) x: I am not (holy) – NIrV; /(omit) I am not – MSG; /earthly – TCNT; /x: mortal
– GNB; /merely human – ISV; /a creature of flesh – Rhm; /a creature of the flesh – Mft;
/bearing the human nature of flesh-and-blood – ARJ; /am mired in the human nature of ~ - ARJ; /am
bound by human nature of ~ - ARJ; /bound to the old nature – JNT; /fleshly – ALT, NWT, CLV, HNV,
Diagl; /x: of the flesh – NRSV, BBE; /of flesh – NASB; /x: made out of flesh – HCSB; /x: made of
flesh – SENT; /x: unspiritual – NET, Cass, NIV duo, Noyes; /not spiritual – ERV; /(It is I who am)
carnal – PNT; /x: carnal – RSV, KJV++ (- what does it mean ‘carnal’. Paul was carnal?); /x: I am not –
TNT, NIrV; /x: earthly – TCNT; /x: have a corrupt nature – GW; /x: a mortal – GNB; /x: merely a
human – CEV; /all too human – NLT;
/a creature of the flesh [carnal, unspiritual] – AMP; /mere flesh – ISV; /xx: merely a
human – CEV; / [Note: “Flesh” throughout this section refers to a person’s natural
inclinations to sin]. – AUV exp; /have a corrupt nature – GW; /육신에 속하여 – KRV (<
육신에 속해있어); /육신적이어서 – KKJV; /罪ある 人間であり – JSS; /
*Virgin birth
Related word: ‘*marriage’

virgin birth myths to virgin birth belief [which is essential for Trinity doctrine]

Conception/birth of Yeshua by Mariam was from intra-marital relation with her husband
Yosef, in the power of holy spirit. According to spirit, He was the Son of Elohim. But according
to flesh he was and had to be the seed of David/Abraham. Of course Mariam was a maiden and
virgin when she was taken in marriage to Yosef.a

[What about His ‘miraculous virgin birth’? It Biologically it is impossible to produce a male
by human parthenogenesis (aside from a faux conception).
Is it possible for the Holy Ghost to impregnate (put a seed of haploid of male DNA set) to fuse
with an ovum in Mariam’s body – to produce a ‘God-man’ or ‘demi-god’ on earth? ]b

Does it say that the second person of Trinity was put into the womb of the virgin to be born as
a male human being (but not human person' but divine peron'?

www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-norman-geisler-2/the-virgin-birth/

Mashiah was to come taking human nature as the seed of Dawid (Rm 1:3; Rev 22:16; 2Ti 2:8.
Cf. Rm 9:5; also as the son of Dawid - Mt 1:1, 20; 22:42, etc. Cf. Heb 2:16). It is man, not
woman, who passes on the seed. The Mashiah cannot come through the line of a woman.

Mt 1:23 (maiden); Lk 1:27, 34 (virgin-maiden) ░░ /virgin – most;

• Mt 1:23 IRENT renders it as ‘maiden’ as in Hebrew word. The Greek word is used to
translate the Hebrew word almah (a young maiden of marriageable age). It is also used
for betulah (‘virgin’ – Isa 47:1; Deu 22:14, Gen 2:16, Jdg 21:12, etc.).
The O.T. quotation from Isa 7:14 in a typical Mathean midrash. In LXX parthenos.
MT ‘alma’ and LXX – parthenos is rendered as ‘maiden’ in IRENT. In the text of Isa, she
refers to the very maiden, wife of the prophet Yeshayahu. Isa used the Hebrew word almah
only once here, he uses the word betulah five times 23:4, 12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5. The word
Parthenos translating narah (Gen 34:2-3 Dinah – now raped).

The masculine form alem means young man.(1Sam 17:56; 20:22).

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v09-n01/almah ]

• Lk 1:27 she was a maiden and virgin to be ‘betrothed’ to Yosef. IRENT renders it as
‘virgin maiden’ – to hint its Greek word origin [Note: betrothed = given in marriage]

a
Apostolic Father Ignatius of Antioch, ca approximately AD. 110:
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary,
of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. .For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began,
and established all things according to the will of the Father. He was conceived in the womb of Mary,
according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost ...
(Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Ch. XVIII. - The Glory of the Cross; www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-
16.htm#P1093_206499 )
quoted in www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/davids_seed.htm
b www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-norman-geisler-2/the-virgin-birth/

≈ https://youtu.be/jq1q9KUKEYs The Virgin birth (to be believed true)

 Mariam was simply a young maiden of marriage age (about mid-teen)a. In that culture they
were all ‘virgins’ in the sense that they had not sexually known any man. Linguistically:
‘virgin’ (= maiden) (Ko. 처녀) vs. ‘pure virgin’ (Ko. 숫처녀).

The ‘virgin birth’ of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother
Mary through the Holy Spirit without the agency of a human father and born while Mary was
yet a virgin – incorporated in the Nicene Creed ("incarnate of the Virgin Mary") and the
Apostles' Creed ("born of the Virgin Mary"). Actually it is not about ‘virgin birth’ but ‘virginal
conception’ without a male is involved. ('virginal parthenogenesis). (Not to be confused with
a Catholic doctrine formulated since 1854 of ‘Immaculate Conception’ that, when she was
conceived, she was preserved free from all stain of the original sin.)

Two alleged proof-texts for the virgin birth myth are:

• Mt 1:18 ‘before they came together’ = ‘before they came in time together as family’ –
it is misread as ‘before they had sexual relation’;
• Lk 1:34 ‘since I’m not knowing husband’ – usually translated as ‘since I do not know
a mam’; misinterpreting her future conception as if she got conceived as a ‘virgin’
before their marriage was consummated.

Cf. Mt 1:16 ‘from her was born Yeshua’ – some misread as if Yosef was not his father.
Not ‘born of the virgin Mary’.
Cf. Mt 1:19 ‘her husband’ (same as in v. 16) – some mistranslate it as ‘her husband-to-be’
to fit for the virgin birth belief.
[With the virgin birth belief, people reads into the text as “Joseph and Mary
had promised to marry each other. But Joseph thought that Mary had not been
loyal to him. They were Jews. And the only way for Jews to break this promise
was to divorce each other. But Joseph was kind. He planned to protect her
from public gossip. He wanted to divorce her in private. He himself would
risk public gossip.” www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/matthew-
lbw.htm ]
Cf. Mt 1:20 ‘to send her off to her home discreetly not to put her disgraced publicly’ is
interpreted that Joseph thought Mary has been unfaithful until he was convinced by an
angel.
Cf. Mt 1:23 ‘Immanuel’ (With us Elohim’) in the OT text does not that the one born as in
prophecy is Elohim or God, but rather it is Elohim’s presence with Israel for protection.
Cf. the biblical expression ‘born of a woman’ (Gal 4:4) is misinterpreted as if “it reveals
that something unusual has occurred – like a virgin birth”, since, “in a Jewish patriarch
culture one is begotten of a male (the father, as in Gen 5:3, 6, etc.).”
Cf. the biblical expression ‘having conceived in the womb from holy spirit’ (Mt 1:18) is
read as ‘pregnant by the Holy Spirit’ ‘with child of the Holy Ghost’, in turn, to mean that
there was no human father was involved.
Cf. Geek parthenos is understood only as someone who has not had sexual relation; Heb.
almah (for Mt 1:23 quotation of Isa 7:14) was misunderstood and mistranslated as ‘virgin’
instead of the correct meaning ‘maiden’. The OT text itself is not about ‘virgin’ birth and
not about the coming of Mashiah, and the sign as such is not about someone’s virginal state
befor a son was born. It is a prophecy fulfilled as narrated in Isa 8:3-4 about Isaiah’s wife.

aCf. In America in 1950’s the median age of marriage was19 for girls.
http://archive.org/details/Choosing1950
www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2013/04/finding-mr-right-a-1950s-guide-to-dating/274670/
 a
It is neither a case of so-called ‘dual prophecy’, but a typical Matthean midrash of OT
texts.
Cf. The common expression ‘the Son of Elohim’ is taken literally for God to have a son by
impregnating the virgin Mary.
Cf. Problematic exegesis on the expression ‘your seed’ (i.e. seed of Eve) Gen 3:5. Does it
refer to her descendant (e.g. Israel) or a single human person? In Hebrew text, the word
takes plural pronoun ‘their’, not ‘thy’. It is man, not woman, who passes on the seed –
Mashiah cannot come down through a woman’s line.b
Cf. Jn 8:41 ‘We are not some bastards born of fornication’ some reads (adding ‘as you
were’) and asserts that “An insult of Jesus’ enemies provides a back-handed implication that He
was born of a virgin. … their response implies that they were aware of the claim that Jesus was
virgin born but attempted to avoid it charging that He was born of fornication.” – to find an
indirect evidence of ‘virgin birth’!
Cf. ‘Miracles’ (e.g. Jn 2:3-5) by Jesus was taken as an indirect evidence of virgin birth (to
account for His supernatural origin)!
Cf. Every verse telling Christ’s sinlessness (2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1Pe 1:19; 1Jn 3:3) shows, it is
claimed, he must have been virgin born – because a sinless person cannot come from sinful parents.
“Everyone born the natural way (with two parents) is born a sinner (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:3; Rm 5:12).
Does his sinlessness means his sinless nature or he has not seen (i.e. disobedience to his Father)?
What sense one is born sinless or born sinful? Spotless lamb? What about He has a mother? Does it
not include sinful parent? To be sinless is possible if one is born with a father? What about
parthenogenesis? How can Nicene Creed claim He is fully human? Because he had truly human
mother? We humans are not fully human because we are told born sinful? How he can share human
nature with us?
https://youtu.be/jq1q9KUKEYs Norman Geisler – Virgin Birth
Cf. virgin birth is claimed to be essential to Christianity
( https://calvarychapel.com/resources/article/view/why-the-virgin-birth-is-essential-to-christianity/
It is integrated with original sin doctrine and Trinitarian Doctrine (which is basically about
Jesus=God, the deity of Jesus, with the Holy Ghost thrown in as a the third person (= God).

a
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/isaiah-714-a-
virgin-birth/ After Ahaz refuses the warning, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign in
spite of his stubbornness.
b
Woman’s Seed –
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Gen315.pdf Seed of a woman – a kernel of deception
www.christiancourier.com/articles/1571-crushing-the-serpents-head-the-meaning-of-genesis-3-15 Wayne
Jackson:
Who is the woman’s seed? Simply her descendants? Or is Christ involved?
An affirmative answer to the first question is not plausible. Clearly, the seed promise of this entire book (Gen.
22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8, 16) finds its complete fulfillment in the Savior who, in the fullness of time, was “born of
woman” (Gal. 4:4).
Sometimes the claim is made that Genesis 3:15 is a precise prophecy of the “virgin birth” of Jesus, since the
phrase “seed of woman” appears to be unique. In the normal conception process, it is alleged, the male provides
the “seed.” Will this argument stand the test of candid investigation? Frankly, it will not.
The “seed” of Hagar is mentioned later in the book (16:10), as is also the “seed” of Rebekah (24:60),
and yet no virgin births were involved in those cases. The expression does not “exclude a virgin birth,”
but the grammar alone does not establish it (Lewis, 11).
E. F. Kevan once carefully noted:
“It is not right to infer the virgin birth from the Protevangelion, but it is certainly quite legitimate to
look back from the point of view of the virgin birth and see how marvelously close were the words
of promise to the mode of the performance” (80).
H. L. Ellison goes so far as to say that: “Not until the Virgin Birth could the full implication of the
promise be understood (cf. Isa. 7:14)” (138).
Virgin; virgin state; Almah vs. Parthenos

Ref: Brannon Parker (2012): The Serpent The Eagle The Lion & The Disk

https://books.google.com/books?id=FFyAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Greek+parthenos+means+onl
y+virgin?&source=bl&ots=xsxfkXdQDG&sig=JV4KIIQ7p0KCfM0g4hnrwWW915U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahU
KEwi3rYP3xr_PAhXGdT4KHbPrD3U4ChDoAQhCMAY#v=onepage&q=Greek%20parthenos%20means%20onl
y%20virgin%3F&f=false

(Mother of God, pp. 57-70, esp. 59-64) p. 61 “Actually, the Greek word parthenos as such
*never* had anything to do with physical virgin, at least until 2nd century. A.D.
problem of ‘man’ with inclusive language issue

man, men, human, human being

mankind, humanity, humankind (??);
man, male, husband, woman, female, wife,

Related to a Bible translation practice.

*Religions

Note: religion as human endeavor ultimately tied to pleasure and power holding human
being (homo potestas et hedonicus) in hostage. “Science as for pursuit of knowledge;
religion as for pursuit for truth - both mired in the pot of pleasure and power.”

Copied from WB #3A – Name, God, and Person:

Before we can argued properly about ‘religion’, we need the first premise,
which should be intuitive and logical standing on the common ground.
• A statement: religion deals with God and man, whatever different ways the
term ‘religion’ ‘God’ and ‘man’ are defined precisely.
• As a corollary: God is God and man is man; never the twain shall meet.
• All that is in religion is whatever exists and happens between God and man.

This holds true in Judaism and Islam. Surprisingly the Christianity most
accustomed to does not. It has severed its umbilical cord from the original
Yeshua Movement which was rooted within the first century Judaism (of the
Second Temple Period of Jewish History). The authentic Apostolic spirit has
essentially disappeared. In place of Yeshua as the Son of Elohim, a different
God is carved out made of Hellenistic and syncretic ‘Jesus’, being labelled as
‘God’, ‘God the Son’, or ‘God-man’ who is human being but not human
person, but divine person. Some say Jesus became God. But he did not; he was
made to be their God.

Approach to the religion issue and wresting with God-consciousness remain

defective an incomplete unless one acknowledges ignorance and goes through
the agnostic step, as all the knowledge is incomplete and handed-down,
nothing being original and authentic (i.e. ‘truth’). Note that those who hear the
Word of God in the Scripture to have become a Mashiah follower (‘Mashian’)
is not same as the so-called Christians.
*Religions, *spirituality; *rituals; *rites; *theology; *doctrines; *dogma; (religious)
traditions; *faiths; religiosity < religionism; *Christianity; *Christianisms; scientism
(science as a religion), spiritualism, spiritism, spiritualitism, mysticism; Gnostic;
*Hellenism; *Evangelicalism

Ref. (reading material)

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hellenism
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cultural_Anthropology/Ritual_and_Religion
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/.../cults-definition-religion
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics
www.humanreligions.info/what_is_religion.html
www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/28/what-makes-a-religion/
https://youtu.be/0VbnKYiMoCY Sexuality: A Smash-and-Grab Raid or Steps Towards
Love, Commitment, & Marriage (Rabbi Daniel Lapin)
www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/
What_is_religion.htm
Harvey Cox (2009), The Future of Faith]
Louis Charles (2009), Jesus Religion: A Critical Examination of Christian Insanity
Cf. Believing Jesus = God. www.angelsghosts.com/jesus-religion
Ross Douthat (2012), Bad Religion – How We Became a Nation of Heretics.
Hans Schwarz (2005), Theology in Global Context – The Last Two Hundred Years
Warren Smith (2009), A “Wonderful” Deception – the Further New Age Implications of the
Emerging/Purpose Driven Movement
William James (2002), The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature
[www.gutenberg.org/files/621/621-
pdf.pdf?session_id=38ad70a4c1d7e16d0650f553c7944601503b3f74 ]
Eric Weiner (2010), Man Seeks God: My Flirtations of the Divine
(www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-weiner/guide-world-religions_b_1129981.html ) (book
review: www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/books/review/man-seeks-god-by-eric-weiner-
book-review.html )

The word ‘religion’ as innate human endeavor to deal with such things (as the Ultimate, the
Absolute, the Truth, the meaning and purpose of life, etc.) should not be confused with ‘a religion’,
which is practical result in human activity with power control and (plausible) promise of solutions
to human problems, predicament, absurdity, and inherent contradictions. [Religion vs. religion(s);
similar to sin vs. sin(s)] [Cf. one’s faith vs. one’s religion vs. one’s belief] [Cf. ‘believe (in)
religion’? ‘Have religion’? (esp. in Korean expression such as for ‘Christian’: 기독교인 ‘Christ-
religion-person’; Syn. 그리스도인 ‘Christ-person’.]

Religions are always clothed with power – the power which gives rise to conflict, contention,
‘conversion-ism’ (to conquer), etc.

The word ‘Christianity’ itself is thought of and is defined by each one on one’s own way. We
have to see it in its historical development of majority: (1) Apostolic Yeshua Movement within
the Second Temple Judaisma and (2) Gentile Christians with Pauline teaching,b (3) Greco-
Roman Christianity with Roman Constantine Catholic Church coming in power,c and (4)
Divided Denominational Christianity – with Western vs. Eastern split and Roman Catholic vs.
Protestant – followed by plethora of denominations and sects (most with ‘Jesus Christ’). Other
than the two initial forms (Apostolic and Pauline), the Christianism is with ‘Jesus = God’ in the
line of the Trinitarian doctrine, which gradually became dominant from early 4th c. CE, initially
with a Binitarian and later in late 4th c. CE with a Trinitarian formula. The word ‘Christian’ as
used by them was at its start applied to those Gentiles who came into ‘Jesus movement’, which
in due course in a period of about a century gave way to the Greco-Roman Christianity.

Word study: religion, a religion, religions, cf. religious powers (church powers and power
structure/organization); primitive religions (indigenous, tribal, cultic); rudimentary religious
practices.

Cf. religious practices (godliness, piety, devoutness, religiosity, ritual, rites, festivals,
ceremonies, indoctrination/catechism, church laws)
Word study; faith(s), belief(s); religiosity (vs. religious hypocrisy; theocracy; authoritarianism;
legalism; sectarianism)
Word study: ‘Christianity as a religion’; ‘Christianity without religion’ [How a religion can
prove its claim to be a true religion? – No. It simply believes it is true, for otherwise it cannot be
labelled as religion.

As a translation word ‘religion’ within the text of NT. (church jargon).

Ioudaismos – Gal 1:14 Yehudism (Judaism)

thrēskeia Act 26:5; Col 2:28 Jam 1:26, 27
ethelothrēskeia Col 2:23

eusebia 1Tm 6:3 /godly life – GW; /godliness – most; /x: piety /x: religion –BBE;
anosios -2Tm 3:2 – ungodly, irreligious, /x: unholy

Through the human history, religions have been dangerous and often proven evil. “Thou shall
not believe religions.” Cf. Karl Marx: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often
rendered as "religion... is the opiate of the masses" (often ‘opium of the people’). Note: this is
opium not something to help relieve pain, but to be used to control people. The idea was to
dismissive of religions as practiced, but religion.

a
'Second Temple Judaism' -- A period the seven hundred years from the Persian period of the mid-6th
century BC to the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt about 135 CE for the history of the people of Judah and the
Jewish Diaspora.
b
Pauline teaching – Cf. Pauline_Christianity, "Paulism", "Paulianity"
c
the separation of Christianity from Judaism – usually called ‘the parting of the ways’.
Ref. Cohen, The Ways That Parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians, ca. 100-150 CE
(http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10861143 )
Ref. Split of early Christianity and Judaism - Wiki)
Ref. Skarsaune (2007), The Early Centuries Jewish Believers in Jesus.
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/jewbelje.pdf
Ref. Jackson-McCabe, “What's in a Name? The Problem of "Jewish Christianity",” in Jackson-McCabe,
Jewish-Christianity Reconsidered.
Ref. Reed, “"Jewish Christianity" after the "Parting of the Ways"
Ref. Tyson, "Acts, the "Parting of the Ways" and the Use of the Term 'Christians'", Ch. 9 in Kalimi (2016)
Bridging between Sister Religions.
Religions (or faiths) – intellectual vs. experiential [Attitude Behavior Conduct];
Heart (feeling, knowing) vs. mind (thinking, desire, and will).

A religion as a faith; faith as a religion?

 faiths, cults, denominations, schools, ‘people-group’;

Christianity, Christendom, Christianism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism,

Protestantism, etc.
Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism; Yehudism;
anti-Semitism (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/antisem.html )

See * theologies

Cf. What is Evangelicalism? Who are the Evangelicals?6

Evangelical Christianity; Pietism; Reformation movement; Revivalism;
post-evangelicals; ‘Christian Right’;

Doctrines vs. dogmas vs. theologies, vs. creeds – these are not those which can be found in
the Scripture, but of human products with religious power behind – mixture on biblical,
non-biblical and also unbiblical ideas – all these become orthodox as supported by
ecclesiastical power.] [Cf. non-religious doctrines, dogmas, beliefs.]

Dogma: derived from the Greek dogma, which means “opinion’. In our
context, it would mean “opinions about God” and cannot be opinions
derived from God.

Doctrine: derived from the Latin doctrina, which means “teaching.” In

our context, it would refer to “teaching about God” and cannot be same
as “teaching from God”.

Theology: a compound of two Greek terms: theos, which means “God,”

and logos, which means “word.” The suffix -logy, however, came to
mean “study of,” and so “theology” could be understood to mean “the
study about God”, not ‘study of God’.

[other related terms used in Catholic Churcha]

A reading material on ‘religion’:

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (2015), Not In God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence

religious conflict and violence; individualism; dualism (us and enemies; good and evil ones);
dehumanization and demonization of one’s opponents; victim mentality; moral responsibility;
altruistic evil (in the name of God); de-secularization; retaliation and retribution; sibling rivalry (of
Abrahamic descents); radicalization;

a
In Catholicism: www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105 -
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/what-is-the-difference-between-a-
dogma-a-doctrine-an-infallible-statement-an [Dogma; Doctrine; Infallible statement;
Infallible papal teaching; Statement made ex cathedra; Definitively proposed doctrine;
Authoritative statement.]
 www.npr.org/2015/10/08/446980200/not-in-gods-name-confronts-religious-violence-with-a-
different-voice

www.firstthings.com/media/religious-violence-and-biblical-answers?
https://vimeo.com/144072248 (Religious Violence and Biblical Answers: A Conversation with
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks)
https://youtu.be/iQbTNPblkKo Jonathan Sacks: "Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious
Violence" also other youtubes.

Ref. www.evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_appendix an excerpt from Appendix: How Human

Nature Gave Birth to Religion from Robert Wright (2009) The Evolution of God
Ref. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/christianity.html (on definition of
Christianity) “… the teaching and activity of Jesus cannot be properly described under the
heading "*Christianity" but should rather be seen in the context of the religious, social, and
political ferment in Palestine at the end of the Second Temple period, and in relation to the
various sectarian movements at the time.” “… Christianity can be viewed as a religious
institution (whether as a universal church or as distinct churches), as a body of beliefs and
doctrines (Christian dogma and theology), or as a social, cultural, or even political reality
shaped by certain religious traditions and mental attitudes. When the reference is to the
human societies shaped by these traditions and attitudes, the noun "*Christendom" rather
than Christianity is sometimes used. …” [The way it is used, Christianity cannot be other
than a religion of Christians as we encounter diverse Christians with diverse Christian
religions, i.e. Christianisms (e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.). There is a semantic
problem with the expression ‘Christianity without religion’. Does ‘religion’ mean
‘religiosity’ ‘a (particular form of) traditional religion’, etc.? – ARJ]

[Meaning (from English dictionaries) of ‘*Christianity’ – a religion based on the person,

life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth with its beliefs and practices. Cf. Christian
religion(s). (i.e. religion of Christians and Christian Churches – Christianisms). Religion as
an area of human endeavor or an organized institution with power and control – dealing
with problems of supernatural, spiritual, etc. Also used metonymically as Christian
character or practice. What sort of Christianity – variation of it? E.g. Westernized
Christianity, Tongue-speaking Charismatic Christianism, Purpose-driven Possibility-
thinking prosperity Christianism, etc.
What is ‘*Christian’ (noun)? = a person belonging to Christian religion, belief, or church.
Etymologically a person who believes in ‘Christ’. Christian (adj.) – of or related to Christian
person, people, organization; related to Christian practices or beliefs. Not ‘of Christ’ or
‘related to the person of Christ’.]

[For related words, see the next entry: Christianity, ‘the Way’] [Cf. *spiritualitism;
Euhemerism (an approach to the interpretation of mythology in which mythological
accounts are presumed to have originated from real historical events or personages.)]

There are so many ways to define the word ‘religion’. [Here is EE for the concordance study
on the word ‘religion’ itself as appearing in English Bible translations.7] It involves history,
tradition, teaching, dogma, doctrine, theology, system of beliefs, canonization, ecclesiastical
hierarchy and power organization, different class or caste of people (esp. priestly class and
lay class), rules-regulations-rewards-punishment (such as excommunication and shunning,
as well as acting as if a civic authority with judicial power) as well as rites-rituals-routines-
ruts. Religion itself is a social construct and at its core it is something of ideology – which
itself is in pursuit of power and pleasure. In such pursuit man as political being does not
care for persons or people. He does not concern about future. Man of religious being, on the
other hand, is fond of future – including after-life – along with shamanistic touch, prosperity
gospel, hellfire preaching bordering on scare tactics, and with scent of love for curing all
evil and humanity’s problems. With carrot and stick, they exert control over people, often
working in collusion with political powers, keep people in psychological and spiritual
bondage from the effect of mind-control, group hypnosis, and brain-washing.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/religion/rel_1.htm A *religion is a system of beliefs

usually involving the worship of supernatural forces or beings. Religious
beliefs provide shape and meaning to one's perception of the universe. In other
words, they provide a sense of order in what might otherwise be seen as a
chaotic existence. Religions also provide understanding and meaning for
inexplicable events such as a loved one being killed in an earthquake or some
other unpredictable force of nature. For most religious people, their beliefs
about the supernatural are at the very core of their world views.
The performance of rituals is an integral part of all religions. *Rituals are
stylized and usually repetitive acts that take place at a set time and location.
They almost always involve the use of symbolic objects, words, and actions.
For example, ‘going to church on Sunday’ itself is a common religious ritual
for Christians around the world. Religion cannot be religion without rituals.

A religion is likened to an onion – garbed in religiosity and pomp (glory); when peeled off
layer by layer – organization and hierarchy, liturgies, rites, traditions, dogmas and doctrines
– nothing is left over and at its core is the image of Adamic Man (Gen Ch. 3) in pursuit of
power and pleasure. A feature of a religion – Formularism (offers neat formulae for all the
problems a person faces); biblical jargonism (e.g. ‘baptism saves person’ ‘be baptized in
order to be saved’a), doctrinarism (‘believe doctrines, church teaching, etc. to be assured to
go to heaven’), shamanistic practices (fending off evil; sickness misfortune), entertain-ism,
etc.

What makes a religion different from others – Though there are differences on the
significant and weighty issues, at the core is ‘what does it mean by when people say ‘God’.
Note that ‘God’ is not different from ‘god’ (except what they are referring to). Such a
typographic scheme does not help. Since ‘God/god’ is a title in English, which had nothing
to do with the God in the Bible, but imported from the pre-Christian folk religions or
traditions. [This applies equally to non-English languages.]. It is quintessential in that it
comes before people go on every conceivable theological path for any meaningful
intellectual engagement, where logic and reason should prevail. There is what I would call
the great Trinitarian confusion. It provides an apt descriptive phrase when we are confronted
with people’s misconception on the very word ‘God’. It remains alive whenever the Bible
verses are read. The case in point is the Johannine text of Jn 1:1b and 1:1c – ‘and the Word
was with God and the Word was God’ (KJV). The anti-Trinitarian position wants to make
a different translation, for example, to read as ‘and the Word was a god’ (NWT). The
Trinitarian position is such that they leave people confused and fail to provide an intelligent
and articulate answer with complicated theological sophistry to a natural question, (which
is of simple linguistic but not theological concern): ‘how it is possible that the Word was
God with whom he was?’. [For discussion and resolution on this issue, see * Elohim, *

a
“Is baptism is necessary for salvation?” – Cf. Act 2:38; 22:16; Mk 16:16, Jn 3:5; Gal 3:27; 1Pe
3:21)
God.]

The word ‘religion’ (in contrast to ‘religions’) is a domain of human endeavor which deals
with an existence of supernatural powerful beings (deities or gods), but still a part of pursuit
of power and pleasure of humanity – always creating a caste which takes up power to exert
control over people. Throughout human history we see great evil against humanity have
been inflicted by various religions in the name of religion. Yeshua came to fulfill Torah (Mt
5:17). That means, He is the End of Religion. He did NOT come to become a founder of
any religion. All the religions (in variety of cults, sects, or denominations) are man’s
products, ostensively with divine revelation and sanction. If Christianity is not Christianity
apart from religion and behaves just like a religion, it is a dead religion. Even the term
‘Christianity’ has become tainted and now become a suspect —whether Christianity even
without the religion (‘Christianity apart from religion’) will survive becomes shaky. It is not
simply a matter of ‘religiosity’ vs. ‘*spirituality’.

Related words: paganism, heathenism; Gnosticism; Encratism (- ascetic); shamanism;

polytheism; religious movements; doctrinal movements; world views; ideologies (e.g.
Marxism, Humanism (cf. humanitarianism), Materialism, Scientism; Hedonism); cults,
sects, denominations; ‘churches’; *atheism a ; anti-theism; skepticism (cf. cynicism,
6F36F

sarcasm); spirituality; *spiritualism and *spirits; ecumenism b; divine analogy, doctrine of

37F37F

a
Edward Feser (2012), The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
Edward Feser (2017), Five Proofs of the Existence of God

twitter@rzimcanada Fascinating deconstruction of the "New Atheism" by Theodore Dalyrymple ... at

http://ow.ly/tXHd6 www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
twitter@ounbbl Atheists do believe God. Just different name, SELF. Sartre, your puny God does
exist, dead - the bastard!
b
Ecumenism: “the aim of unity among all Christian churches throughout the world” (Collins English
Dictionary).

[JR Miller – “… if by this one simply means a respect for those of different denominations and
a willingness to treat those of different traditions as genuine brothers and sisters in Christ; then
no, Ecumenism is not bad. Unfortunately, the pursuit of ecumenical unity goes far beyond these
simple goals. … Biblical unity has never been about shared theology, mission, or
vision.…Unity, in the Scripture, has always been our gift of salvation from the Father through
the Holy Spirit (1Co 12:1-27). Consequent to God’s gift, the Church has been charged with
maintaining the unity of the Spirit; not creating it (Eph 4:3). In other words, our charge is to
remain obedient to all God has given us through the Apostles, and to stand firm in His gift. If
unity demands we compromise God’s salvation, than it is not biblical, but worldly unity we are
building. … [Here is from Hermon Hoyt, “The Ecumenical Movement in Present Day
Professing Christendom: Revelation 17:5”, Grace Journal Vol. 6, no. 3 (1965): 4-11 about a
recent position of WV:
… Recognizing the ideal [of unity] in the true Church, the purveyors of false doctrine seek to
use this structure for the promotion of their own schemes. Any one of the segments of
Christendom would hardly be sufficient to bring ultimate satisfaction and give universal
approval to false doctrine, so the effort is under way to remove the external fragmentation
and bring together the various segments of professing Christendom in one universal
organization. For justification the words of Christ are cited, “that they may be one, even as we
are one” (John 17:22) But these words are misused, for they refer to spiritual unity and not to
external union.]
analogy;
‘faiths’ (‘religious faiths’); ‘religions’ ‘beliefs’ – synonymous; cf. ideological, scientific
beliefs, etc. primitive indigenous religions. Egalitarianism.

A Catholic spirituality of ‘private revelations (e.g. Fatima; Medjugorje apparition)

- www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm

*shamanism

– www.weyanoke.org/reading/jdf-Shamanism-NewAndOld.html <...there is no such religion as

"shamanism", since all of the religions of the world make use -- perhaps equally -- of the tools of the
"shaman" including liturgy (ritual), songs, incantations (recited prayers or formulas) and direct contact with
the spiritual world (visions, ecstasy) in order to bring about changes on the physical plane (< realm – ARJ).
… But what about the idea that the "shaman" believes in "an unseen world of gods, demons, and ancestral
spirits..."? Roman Catholics believe in "an unseen world" of Mother Mary, Father God, Jesus, the Holy
Ghost, the Devil, many angels and a pantheon of saints (ancestral spirits), plus various demons which can
be exorcised. Most Protestants believe in Father God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the Devil, numerous angels
and a certain number of saints. All of these non-human, non-physical beings would be called "gods" or
"lesser gods" if we were being objective, that is, not talking about supposedly "monotheistic" Christianity.>

Shamanism - Wikipedia
shaman (n.) www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shaman
1690s, "priest of the Ural-Altaic peoples", probably via German Schamane, from Russian sha'man, from
Tungus saman, which is perhaps from Chinese sha men "Buddhist monk," from Prakrit samaya-, from
Sanskrit sramana-s "Buddhist ascetic" [OED]. Related: Shamanic.

*mysticism; spiritualitism;

presence of God vs. union with God (Christian mysticism),

Three common characteristics of all the religions people believe

are outward manifestations of various degree of (1) suppression of individual freedom of
spirit and (2) submission to the human powers, and (3) suspension of reasoning and logic –
by various socio-psychological and political-ideological means:

1. Ritualism – elaborate rites, liturgies, icons, relics, saints, totems, shamanism, and
superstitions, group hypnosis (e.g. elaborate church pageantry with pomp and pride,
charismatic shows);
2. *Legalism – dogmatism, authoritarianism, initiation, excommunication,
prohibitions, inquisitions, persecution, execution; hypercritical mind-set; intolerance
and hate of others
3. Formularism – mantra, teachings, prescriptions, ‘blessings and rewards’, promise of
happiness-prosperity in the future with denial of human reality; ‘blaming Satan’ for

World Vision, Ecumenism, and Moral Confusion - Part 2 | More Than Cake
(www.morethancake.org/archives/7871#ixzz2y8TiPVML )
 evils. Cf. Catechisma,

Most are façade with false and fake, with ‘as if’, ‘make believe’, and ‘going through the
motions’ along with ‘going through the flow of the world system’ while claiming to go
against the flow - of hypocrisy, banality, compromise, and superficiality.

*Myth, mythologies, fables/fictions/legends

*Myth – a technical term, different from another common use with negative sense (fictions,
legends, made-up fabricated stories, etc.). [As for IRENT, when it is in this sense the word
‘mythos’ is used, a Greek loanword, in order to disconnect a wrong word picture.] [See a
definition on ‘myth’b]
Cf. mythologies (e.g. Greek, Roman, etc.); folklores; [Cf. ‘symbols’; Cf. In N.T.,
‘mystery’, not mysterious unknown things, but the things hidden, now revealed.]

*tradition – what kind of, when, from whom. Religious, philosophical, cultural, modern
scholarly, etc. ‘Judaic tradition of the Elders’.

*context, *contextualization; *contextual theology

Context and Concept.pdf

Superstition – Ref. Towards a Theoretical Conceptualization of Superstition

*Spirituality;

cf. ‘spirital reality’, cf. spirituality practices

[It is often confused with spiritualism (something prevalent outside Christianity proper).]

a
Words – doctrines, teachings, rules, beliefs, creeds, catechism, statements of faith, etc.
b
in Andrew M. Greeley, The Jesus Myth (1971) p. 11. ]Cf. his three-volume book, Myth of
Religions (1989)]
www.questia.com/library/140244/the-jesus-myth
The word "myth" is used in the title of this volume in a specific and definite
sense. A myth is a symbolic story which demonstrates, in Alan Watts' words,
"the inner meaning of the universe and of human life." To say that Jesus is a
myth is not to say that he is a legend but that his life and message are an attempt
to demonstrate "the inner meaning of the universe and of human life." As Charles
Long puts it, a myth points to the definite manner in which the world is available
for man: "The word and content of myth are revelations of power." Or as A. K.
Coomaraswamy observes, "Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute
truth that can be stated in words."
Many Christians have objected to my use of this word even when I clearly define
it specifically. They are terrified by a word which may have even a slight
suggestion of fantasy. However, my usage is the one that is common among
historians of religion, literary critics, and social scientists. It is a valuable and
helpful usage; there is no other word which conveys what these scholarly
traditions mean when they refer to myth. The Christian would be well advised to
get over his fear of the word and appreciate how important a tool it can be for
understanding the content of his faith.
.
A precise definition is difficult to obtain. However, this term should be understood as an abstract
notion of something belonging to ‘spirit’ and ‘realm of spirit’ (in contrast to the realm of ‘soul’ and
‘material’). Thankfully this word is not found in the Bible. At the word root level, it should stand at
the level of word category as ‘personality’ (not ‘personhood’) or ‘soulicality’ (a neologism made of
‘soul’ = ‘person’s being’). Unfortunately it is universally put at the same level with ‘religion’, as in
such phrases as ‘spirituality vs. religion’ or ‘Spiritual but not religious’. Furthermore, it needs to be
differentiated from ‘praxis of spirituality’ (‘spiritualitism’ – a neologism) to keep it conceptually
clear. We have to settle to a working definition for the purpose it can serve in a manner of least
common factor, rather than greatest common factor (Cf. LCM or LCD vs. GCM or GCD). A variety
of definition can be sampled from a plethora of books and online articles. 8
[Ref. Lucy Bregman, “Spirituality Definitions: A Moving Target”
(www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bregmanspaper.pdf)]

from Introduction p. 1 in Barton (1990), The Spirituality of the Gospels

… In simplest terms, spirituality as I use it in this book has to do with the sense
of the divine presence and living in the light of that presence. There are two basic
aspects therefore:
knowing and being known by God, on the one hand,
and responding with the whole of life, on the other. (Fn 1)

To put it another way, spirituality has to do with life in (– ARJ > under) God:
and for Christians, it has to do specifically with life under the God who is
revealed in Jesus and who graces believers with the Spirit. Clearly, this is a much
broader definition of Christian spirituality than those described above. It is not,
however, without its points of contact with both the 'Catholic' and the 'Protestant'
approaches. Its advantage for this study of the gospels is that it does more justice
to the originating moment' which they re-present, as we shall see.

(Fn 1) This is not an idiosyncratic definition by any means. For example, Gordon S.
Wakefield, in his excellent essay on 'Spirituality' in idem, ed., A Dictionary of Spirituality
(London: SCM Press, 1983), pp. 361-3, defines it thus: 'This is a word which has come
into vogue to describe those attitudes, beliefs, practices which animate people's lives and
help them to reach out towards super-sensible realities'. And, speaking specifically of
Christian spirituality, he says: 'Mutual indwelling with God in Christ is at once the means
and the end; but this is a being caught up into the paschal mystery , not absorption into
the infinite, and it cannot deliver us from the sometimes unbearable tensions, dangers and
sufferings of "the world of action" ' . Cf. also C. Garner's essay, 'What on Earth is
Spirituality?', in J. Robson and D. Lonsdale, eds., Can Spirituality Be Taught? (London:
ACATE and BCC, no date), pp. 1-8.

Its practice in various flavors is prominent in Eastern religions and Christian mysticism. The
word ‘spirituality’ has recently been gaining popularity among the masses. It is now difficult
to be differentiated from with psychological-spiritualistic technique and practice.

Related words – ‘secular spirituality’ ‘Christian spirituality’; non-Christian spirituality;

mysticism; ‘tongue-speaking’ (glossolalia); meditation; self-awakening; flow, ki a; yoga; 38F38F

a
‘ki’ - (‘氣’ in kanji; ‘기’ in Korean hangul).
mind-control, spiritism a, Shamanism,
39F39F

‘Christian atheism’ – a rhetorical expression reflecting its denial of number of gods. No

Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Mithras, Isis, or whoever. Similarly, gods of our culture are denied.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/from_moral_majority_to_evil_disbelievers_
coming_clean_about_christian

religions vs. politics

Religions (not ‘religion) and politics, both running under the principle of power and pleasure,
control human affairs and destiny. On which one can we put our finger for their ‘false, fake,
farce, foul, ferocity’? Religions need collusion with political powers to gain their own
priestly power. Both always find others as bedfellows.

Object of religion and politics is same: Pursuit of power and pleasure

*science vs. religion

*science, scientism, evolution, evolutionism, Freudianism; creationism;

The conflict of Religion vs. Science is actually misguided by the both parties. It is
actually priestly powers of religions vs. political powers in secular domain; at the
core, it is religious vs. scientific ideas with power contestation between ‘priests vs.
scientists’ as shown in the history since Renaissance. Religion (not ‘religions’) and
science are non-overlapping domains of human endeavor and, as such, cannot be foe
to each other. People invade with their ideas each other’s space and should get
corrected, not to in constant tension.

It is unfortunate to see debate ‘religion vs. science’ is fomented – simply because of

insufficient linguistic and literary understanding of the Scripture. Most of people (scientific
and religious scholars) have not studied the Scripture in its depth and height, in its original
languages, with enough to hold on their limited understanding with the translated Bibles.
To argue and debate, both sides are required to cover most fields of human knowledge from
A for astronomy and archeology to zoology, from philosophy to politics, from history and
literature, not mention languages and linguistics. Only then they can come to the table to
find common ground to stand, supported by the pillars of logic, reasoning and rhetoric. Most
of those labeled as scientists are not truly scientists, but applied scientists (either by applying
technology or by digesting and propagating scientific knowledge). Even with the science
scholars, they are by nature, focused in their narrow field and ‘narrow minded’ to be truly
give an objective ideas but usually fallen into a varying degree of scientism, a quasi-religion
by itself. Like any ideology such as socialism and communism, the main goal is the power
to hold, acquire and use to subjugate. It parallels confusion between ‘(phenomenon of)
evolution’ and evolutionism (a doctrine of scientism with ultimate tenants of (1) the total
meaningless of the universe and our existence, and (2) human being as a product of
evolution from a lower biological form which they evade to elaborate on (? Humanoids?
Apes? Monkeys, etc.), and which eventually come into existence from chemical reaction of

a
*spiritism - a pagan belief that the living can and do communicate with the spirits of the departed, and to
the various practices by which such communication is attempted. It should be carefully distinguished
from *spiritualism and *spirituality.)
organic substance. Any creation work begins information. In the beginning (of creation) was
information. Information cannot come from nowhere. Even on the side of religion a similar
trend that which goes against reasoning and logic, and fail to learn from the other domain –
undisputable scientific principles. E.g. ‘Young Earth creationism’ – this does not belong
to ‘Christianity’, if we understand Christianity as Christ’s teaching, not a teaching held by
Christian religions and churches. Yeshua (not ‘Jesus’) never mentioned how old the earth
was! It is a misguided midrash of O.T. by some creationist. In that way, it has become like
a religion on its own. The Genes of TaNaKh never says how old the earth was. It declares
God’s creation of the heavens and earth and begins the majestic narrative of how the creation
work began to culminate making of the ‘groundling’ (i.e. human being). There was no
calendar which would allow us to count days from then on. We simply are not provided
with any information on what the beginning of humankind was on the earth, and even when
the earth came to be. The scientific logical fact of ‘nothing comes out of nothing in physical
world’ is denied by evolutionists. No, as for God, He did not create the universe from
nothing. True He did not created from anything already existing (- self-contradictory
statement). It is by His fiat – the Elohim’s Logos as the agent of creation.

Reading material: William Adams (1850), The Elements of Christian Science

https://archive.org/details/elementsofchrist00adam (downloadable - poorly scanned
image)
www.unz.org/Pub/AdamsWilliam-1850 (online reading)
https://openlibrary.org/search?sort=new&author_key=OL2332771A (online reading)
The Elements of Christian Science: A Treatise Upon Moral ... (google online
reading)
[not confused with a cult ‘Christian Scientists’]
Reading material: http://considerthegospel.org/evolution-fact-or-fable/

*evolutionism – a religion [agenda-driven ideology] with a gospel of pseudo-science

Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of

Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (was first published in London by John Murray on
November 24, 1859 – 1st ed. The final 6th ed.1872) – [How was the term ‘species’ defined?
How did he tell from one species to another which appears closely related related? Did he
have any hint of genetic principles? Note the subtitle ‘favored races’ – the idea of racial
superiority which provided ideological foundation of Nazism. In fact, Darwin is the Father
of Nazism – ARJ]

Religion and science are different domains of human endeavor – science is and should be
about ‘facts’ and ‘explaining (away in plausible way)’; whereas religion is of value and
meaning. Both may straddle over same issues, but they are independent at the essence.
While observation, experimentation, and theorizing are at the core of science, it has to admit
the boundary or limit of its endeavor; e.g. (1) trying to prove some this is absent and (2)
imposing ideology outside the science on to others.
[Reading material: Paul Kurtz, Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? In
www.csicop.org/si/show/special_issue_on_science_and_religion/ Vol. 23.4, July/Aug 1999.
Skeptical inquirers can and should examine religious claims, though the case can be made that
CSICOP should not. [*inquiry – fallacious inquiry with microscopic and myopic eyes. Cf. The
Astrologer who Fell into a Well The story of Thales falling into a well while gazing at the stars was
originally recorded in Plato's Theaetetus.]

www.christianheadlines.com/news/exposing-the-religion-of-scientism-11598780.html
Exposing the Religion of Scientism
www.christianpost.com/news/beware-of-blinding-nature-religion-scientism-93589/
scientism as religion
www.christianpost.com/news/c-s-lewis-foresaw-rise-of-scientism-as-religion-today-says-
scholar-at-apologetics-conference-128028/
www.the-american-interest.com/2011/08/03/christian-scientism/ (‘Christian scientism’)

*religion, science; psychology; philosophy, metaphysics

Kkk3
Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

scientism [cf. Scientology. Christian_Science ]

neurolinguistics psycholinguistics;
psychology applied psychology
hypnosisa; hypnotherapy; self-hypnosis autosuggestion; mind control
(brainwashing);
folk psychology
popular_psychology (pop psych) psychobabble ; human potential movement New
Age
self-help; Logotherapy; (a pseudoscience) neuro-linguistic programming
new religious movement new age movement (spiritualitism, a neologism - a
certain practice for ones’ spirituality. Not to be confused with spiritualism)

*faith, faiths, belief, *creed, *dogma, *doctrine, cult, orthodox, heterodox

Ecumenical, evangelical, heretical, denominational, sectarian

There are many doctrines, creeds (confessions; “statement of faith”). What we have
is all man-made – to suit the need and agenda for many churches, small and big. It
is not the teaching of the Bible itself.

https://carm.org/creeds-and-confessions
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-importance-and-early-use-of-creeds/

Belief vs. Faith:

a
on hypnosis: one should realize how mind-control is exerted (subtly or naturally without a training in
hypnosis) by the people in position and power – politics, professions, priestly class. Cf. Power of
suggestion vs. persuasion.
http://youtu.be/gX-7oSmIkOc (Learn How To Hypnotise - The Approach) www.headhacking.com/
C.I.Q. – Compliment (trivial but genuine, not serious), Introduction (‘who I am’ – I myself would not say
'I'm a hypnotist, since hynosis is not what I'm in), Question (yes – in fact, life begins with Q and with Q.
Many put Q at the beginning of their contact ‘come into other’) and get Started (again it is not performance
of hypnosis, but, something for creation standing on common ground and sharing each other’s ‘space’).
http://youtu.be/NtxtfuhVh24 [Learn How To Hypnotise – Suggestions]
http://youtu.be/Lxzg_f4tUcs [Odd One In - Hypnotist]
http://youtu.be/ZNTIc9ytaaM [Street Hypnosis - Hypno Survival - Anthony Jacquin - Head Hacking]
 B. Chilton (1984), A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (p. 151) “… Faith is rather
an individual’s cri du coeur, which he may discover on reflexion is also the
confession of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus and Paul. Unless a belief is both a
statement of the individual’s consciousness of himself in the world and at the
same time an expression which is recognizably related to scriptural values, it
is no evidence for biblically based faith. …”

*Atheism

Atheism (with an accent on A): not that they believe there is no god (무신론
無神論), but they do not acknowledge that they believe a god, for to deny a god one
has to know that god, but they know not about. However, the fact is, they believe
one god, their ‘sacred self’. Not believing no god, but not believing in a god and for
that matter don’t care about – all aside from the question of what and who God is. It
is different from anti-theism (‘belief and ideology to stand against any God of others
confessed).

twitter@rzimcanada Fascinating deconstruction of the "New Atheism" by Theodore

Dalyrymple ... at http://ow.ly/tXHd6 www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
twitter@ounbbl Atheists do believe God. It is simply ‘My Sacred Self’. Since it is wimpy one has
to get some power from others, including those in the spirit realm.

*faith, ‘*belief, ‘religions’; ideology, philosophy, metaphysics, worldview; conviction;

‘Faith, Doubt, and Reason’ ‘blind faith’

“Belief is to faith, unrelated to religion; non-belief is a worse form of a religion.”
“Religions – collapsing faith into belief”
Dogma – Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’– (St.
Cyprian of Carthage).
Religiosity – pious belief (e.g. in Catholic Church) – ‘cf. spirituality’.

‘FAITH’ – Acrostic: “Forsaking All. I trust Him”; it is putting one’s trust on Him
and entrust everything to Him, including one’s very life and soul.

→
Related words – teachings, doctrines, dogmas, creeds; agenda; ideologies;
philosophies; traditions (religious or ecclesiastical); theologies;

*Religion; religions

All religions are many-faced. There is no pure religion. All religions

are syncretic amalgamation of multifarious religions.

We in religion – we are servants of religions; we of religion – we are

slaves of religions.
 The word ‘faith’ is often used in the sense of religion (as in ‘faiths’). It is often
erroneously equated with ‘belief’.

*idea a; ideology; philosophy; *worldview b

52F52F 53F53F

Ultimately man’s fight against other man is ideological in every aspect of human endeavor
— philosophical, political as well as religious — governed by the principle of Power and
Pleasure at the top rung, with all the consequent killings and murderings throughout human
history, in conquering and oppression, with spilt blood running deep as the horses’ bridles
(Rev 14:20). Everything is ultimately religious, since everyone believes a god of gods, the
most pervasive one being ‘one’s own self’, which has become as what-God-is to them as
Satan challenged and promised to Adam, showing the fruit from the tree of Knowing Right
and Wrong — so that he can decide what is right and wrong apart from the Creator.

*Theologies – While theology is what it is, when it comes down to ‘theologies’,

among what we have is an array of strange beasts of religious-political-ideological
agendas (e.g. ‘liberation theology’, ‘feminist theology’, etc.); understandably so
because all human products, including theologies, dogmas, and doctrines are
human product.
cf. non-religious doctrines (e.g. scientific, philosophical, political, etc.
cf. religious doctrines – not necessarily biblical or Scriptural. Orthodox
doctrines, heterodox or heretic doctrines, denominational or sectarian doctrines.

Gospels – prosperity gospel (health, wealth, prosperity, miracles);

possibility gospel; purpose-driven gospel;

Gospel has more than personal and spiritual, but social dimension in our
life. However “Social Gospel Movement”: [Cf. Fabian Socialism ]
www.gotquestions.org/social-gospel.html
[https://youtu.be/fLCO0_HNw_U MacArthur Destroys the "Social
Gospel"]
social-gospel-councils-churches-and-fabian-socialism http://tiny.cc/cxlb4x

Faith(s) – usu. in plural, often used syn. with religions or religious faiths.
However, ‘faith’ (singl.) is not same as ‘religion’ or ‘belief’. There is no
such thing as ‘faith in faith’ (? faith in the word ‘faith’).

Related expressions –
• oligopistos Mt 6:30; 17:10 v.l., etc. /of little faith; /> with little faith – NWT;
/x: small faith; /xx: small in faith; /xx: little belief

• tosautēn pistin heuriskō Mt 8:10 ‘find great faith’

a
idée (Fr.). A reading material: Arthur Lovejoy (1936), The Great Chain of Being –
History of an Idea.
b
worldviews - www.sleepingbaby.net/jan/Essays/worldview.html (evolution theory as a worldview);
www.co-intelligence.org/EvolutionaryWorldview.html (evolutionary worldview)
www.evolutionarymanifesto.com/ www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53
http://youtu.be/jDiF84ZU5EQ
• prostithēmi pistin Lk 17:5 ‘increase faith’

• echō pistin ōs kokkon sinapeōs Mt 17:20; Lk 17:6 ‘have faith as this much as
a mustard seed’

• apistia Mt 13:58; 17:10 v.l. lack of faith9; /x: unbelief – KJV, ESV, NET, etc.
[‘belief with church dogmas, doctrines, creeds, and teaching. *Unbelief is a
religious jargon, not belonging to the vocabulary of the Scripture.] [??Danker
p. 43 – ‘refusal to give credence to’] Mt 13:58; 17:20; Mk 6:6; 9:24; 16:14;
Rm 3:3; 4:20; 11:20, 23; 1Ti 1:13; Heb 3:12, 19;

• apistos – (1) without faith/trust; [not putting or unable to put trust]; /xx:
unbelieving – Mt 17:17; Mk 9:24; Lk 9:41; Jn 20:27; 1Co 6:6; 2Co 6:14; 1Ti
5:8; /x: unfaithful; (2) faithless, without fidelity/commitment, fickle (Danker),
unbelieving; Mt 17:17; Tit 1:15; Rev 21:8; (3) incredible, farfetched – Act
26:8;

• apisteō – not to, or refuse to believe Mk 16:11, 16: Lk 24:11, 41; Act
28:24; 1Pt 2:7; be unfaithful Rm 3:3; 2Ti 2:13;

• Cf. apeitheia (disobedience - /x: unbelief - DRB) Rm 11:30, 32; Eph

2:2; 5:6; Heb 4:6, 11; Col 3:6

‘believe God’ ‘believe in God’

‘believe someone’ vs. ‘believe something’

Cf. ‘come to believe in God’; ‘believe in Elohim’

The word *believe is in the very basic vocabulary of English. Like ‘see’,
‘know’, ‘hear’, ‘say’, etc., it has a wide semantic field and used in different ways
with diverse nuance and word-picture. As is used in the Bible, it is often
misunderstood and found incorrectly phrased.

‘believe’, ‘believe in’, ‘trust’, ‘put or place trust in’, ‘have faith in’, ‘put faith
in’ – all these make a sense only when the verb takes an object. If it is in ellipsis
as often the case, the readers have to be somehow clear about it, less the act of
‘believe’ becomes a nonsensical word). The object it takes may be other than a
person for ‘believe’ (a thing, a fat, an idea, or a statement, etc.)

‘believe in me’ occurs a few times in N.T. (Note: ERV uses ‘believe in
me’ indiscriminatingly in place of ‘acknowledge/confess me’)

Yeshua never says ‘have faith in me’ (belief, creed, etc.!); it is always
‘believe me – or, ‘believe in me’ (that is, to come and put trust in me).
See Jn 4:11, 12
 The English phrase ‘have faith in me’ (on the lips of Jesus) only is found
in CEV 14x (Jn 6:36, 64; 7:38; 8:24, 45, 46; 10:38; 14:1, 11, 12, 29; 16:9;
20:29), as well as one place in NWT4 – Mt 18:6 (cf. ‘put faith in me’ –
NWT3)

To believe someone is first of all to believe who he is (as he claims who he is)
and to believe his words. It does not mean believing that the person exists!
Believing someone’s existence is not believing someone, but believing
something (facts, ideas, truths, etc.). To believe in someone is to put one’s total
trust on him and abide in him.

Related words: ‘accept’, ‘receive’ ‘listen to’ ‘obey’ ‘follow’

Anyone may believe ‘God’– a thief, a sinner, even demon does.

Relation to the Creator – (1) Love, (2) respect (‘awe’; honor), (3) trust
(surrender; entrust)
To trust, one first believes – belief has to be connected to his life
Believe – to take it as true or genuine. ‘to believe God’ is to take ‘God’ as a true
construct. Mostly it means what is called ‘God’ is exists rather than a non-
existing or a make-believe.
Believe in – putting one’s trust in. In reference to God, it means to entrust all
(including one’s own self).
“Believe into” – Greek phrase - = come to believe in. In reference to God, it
points to live in His care, quickened by His Spirit. Nothing to do with ‘finding
some beliefs in God’ ‘becoming a member of a religion’.
Believe in God does not mean ‘one keeps (some) beliefs about God’ or
‘expecting Him to do something good for us’.

Meaning of ‘believe’ as shown in a Scriptural phrase, “Abraham put faith in

YHWH” – Gen 15:6

It is not ‘had faith in’, ‘believed in’, or ‘believed God’, as we find in various
English Bibles. It is to ‘believe what He declared’ and to put trust on to
Him’ and to ‘remain steadfast in Him and stand firm with Him’. ‘Believing
Him’ is submitting to His will and obeying to His Words. ‘Believing Him’
is knowing what He says is true, and knowing He is with you … not hoping
that He is or will be. ‘Believing Him’ is delighting in Him, regardless of
the circumstances, riding above the tide of life, not going with flow, nor
swimming against the current. ‘Believing Him’ is a determined walk during
which you continue to empty yourself of yourself, so that He can fill you
up according to His purposes. It is calling out to Him for His will to be done
and not your own, with Amen, an affirmative answer of acceptance and
surrender to what He has said.

Word groups;
 verbs:

put trust on (someone) ------------------believe in (someone); come to

believe in; /x: put/have faith in (‘faith’ as creed, beliefs, church teaching,
religion, etc.)
trust (someone) –
believe (someone)
rely on (someone)

nouns:

trust – belief –faith --religious faith -- creed (cf. doctrines, dogma) –faiths -- religions.
(e.g. biblical faith, Christian faith) (e.g. Catholic faith, Protestant ~)
신뢰 믿음 신앙 신조 (교리) (믿음) 종교

cf. conviction (ko. 신념)

Not all ‘*faith’ in NT is ‘faith’. i.e. the Greek noun pistis is not same as ‘faith’
(e.g. Mt 8:10 – so-called <Centurion’s faith> - it is ‘one’s putting trust on’, not
‘faith’.

The word ‘faith’ (noun) in the Scripture is a basically verbal noun, rather than
metaphysical or theological special jargon. It is one’s act of putting everything
(including life and death) into trust on God Himself. The word ‘faith’ which has
turned into an abstract concept and becomes to be used synonymous with
‘belief’ ‘conviction’, eventually ‘creed’, and even ‘religion’. Something one can
have or hold on.

The problem with English expression ‘by faith’:

In Hebrew (Heb 11:3ff) –there is a series of the word pistei 18x. Most translates as ‘by
faith’ (except one place v. 3 in KJV) [some paraphrase ‘he had faith’ – CEV, ERV;
‘faith led him to’ – GW; ‘it was faith that ~’ – GNB. ‘by belief’ – ISR, ABP. [Cf. 4:2
tē pistei; 10:38 ek pisteōs; Heb 11:7b kata pistin]

It has become a means for something. An example is seen in the expression

‘salvation by faith’, as if faith itself becomes a means to achieve salvation. Cf.
the expression ‘justified ~ by faith only’ (KJV) - Jam 2:24 dikaioutai ~ ouk ek
pisteōs – ‘not on the basis of faith alone’. [English syntax ‘justified by faith’
rather than ‘something by faith’] [Cf. ‘sola scriptura’ a] 54F54 F

On the contrary nowhere the Scripture does say or suggest ‘faith saves a person’.

a
The Five Solae of the Protestant Reformation: Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus
Christus, Soli Deo gloria
 Faith does not give salvation. In fact, it is faith that brings salvation; salvation
is in restored relation to God with life quickened by the Spirit. Salvation (‘be
saved’) is not an event, but rather a continued process of restoration of relation
to sanctification and ‘glorification’ a . The notion ‘salvation’ should not be
confused with the salvation event by Mashiah’s death, nor with one’s ‘being
born again’. Faith is not a mantra for achieving salvation, or spirituality, nor a
mantra for prosperity (as used by the *cult of ‘Word of Faith’).

Not to be confused with ‘righteous on the ground of trusting God’ (> ‘justified
by faith’ – Rm 3:28)

pisteuō in G-Jn (a list not exhaustive)

• come to believe in
2:11 (come to trust in – JNT); 12:36; 20:31
• believe into the name of
1:12; 2:23; 3:18
• believe into him
7:5, 48; 9:35, 36; 11:46, 48; 12:36, 37, 42, 44; 16:10, 30; 17:20
• believe (dative)
2:20 (words); 8:31 (him);
• believe (the light) through him
1:7

• believe things, facts

1:50; 3:12;
• get to believe (it)
11:15; 20:8;

pisteuō eis *believe into:10

The expression pisteuō eis eme ‘come to believe in me’ is a typical Johannine
expression and reflects dynamic relationality, best rendered as ‘come to believe
in’. The preposition eis has dynamic sense, ‘into the reality; joining in
fellowship’ – ‘come to me to put trust on me’; not simply ‘believe in’ like
pisteuō en – stative.
/come to believe in – IRENT; /> put faith in - NWT; /x: believe in –

a
www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/glorification.html
 NASB, HCSB, NIV trio, Cassirer, most; /x: trust in – JNT (- simple
verb ‘trust’ has different nuance as if dealing whom does not lie);
/believing [or trusting] in – ALT; /x: have faith in – BBE (- ‘faith’ as
if ‘belief’.)]

The expression ‘come to me’ (erchomai pros eme) is followed by ‘the one who
comes to believe in me’ (ho pisteuōn eis eme) in Jn 6:35. Cf. in 7:37 (‘let come
to me and drink’). It is not ‘believe me’, neither simply ‘believe in me’. On the
other hand, Jn 12:44 is one instance which does not carry such sense of ‘coming
to believe’, but ‘having already come and now putting trust in Him’.

pisteuō eis to ononma ‘believe into the name of ~ (Yeshua)’. ‘come to believe
in the name of ~’ (IRENT); It is not about having faith on the name itself (that
has to be correctly spelt and inscribed meticulously and pronounced repeatedly),
as if it has magic power used as a mantra). Note that Yeshua Himself was never
shown in the Scripture uttered the divine name YHWH and had pain to teach
the sacred name to people or even His intimate disciples, but was shown that
He always addressed Him as Father. [Note only in the quoted text of Psa 22:1
as He utters on the Cross – Mt 27:46 (‘Eli, Eli’) // Mk 15:34 (‘Eloi, Eloi’) we
hear ‘My Elohim’ in recitation of the Psalm. If the name YHWH is of supreme
importance, this would be the one decisive moment it would be heard, but not.
To have the name revealed, revered and honored in the life of believers has
nothing to do with putting effort to inscribe and utter the name as often as one
wishes – which is the other side of blasphemy.

*Judaism; Yehudism

Hellenistic.
Rabbinic Judaism vs. Karaism (Karaite Judaism)
Cf. Sabbateans; cf. Hasidism;
Modern Judaism - Reformed Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Ultra-
Orthodox Judaism, and Chadasim;

Difference between ‘Jewishness’ vs. ‘Being Judaic’.

*Judaism, *Judahism (< *Yehudism)

By his recombination of existing elements and his own creative additions, he permanently replaced the
religion of ancient Israel with a new one. This, because of its conceptual locus in the southern kingdom,
focusing on Jerusalem, is best called “Judahism”, and it followers “Judahists” or “Judahites”. This is not
a word trick. The new system of belief and practice has to be distinguished both from what came before
it (of which, note, we have no direct knowledge, only light filtered through the writings of the Judahists).
And, equally, it has to be distinguished from its successor, the great invention of the second through
fifth centuries of the Common Era, “Judaism” whose follower we know as the “Jews”. The difference
here is not linguistic: all variants of “Jews”, “Jewish”, “Judaism”, “Judahism”, trace their origins to the
Hebrew word “Yehudah”, referring to the tribe of Judah. The difference is historical and one of the
primary rules of historical work is not to use one term for two distinct phenomena. The religion of Judah,
 based on Temple sacrifice to Yahweh, up to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE , is distinct
historically from its descendent, the post-Temple faith, usually known as “Rabbinic Judaism”.
From Donald Akenson (1998), Surpassing Wonder – The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds, (p.
28)

Second Temple Judaism: Pillars, Rituals and Festivals

www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Lecture%20Outlines/2TempleJudaism.htm

Four pillars of Second Temple Judaism (Exclusive Monotheism, Election-

Covenant, Torah and Temple)

So-called *Replacement theology (aka supersessionism) – unbiblical human doctrine.

*Zionism:
Zionism is an international religious-political movement for the return of the Jewish people to
‘Zion’, the land of Israel, while exercising the right to retain authority of government over the state
of Israel, which was promised to them in the Hebrew Scriptures. The roots for Zionism lie in
Genesis Ch. 12 and 15.

… the Zionist movement, begun in the late 1890s, found fulfillment in 1948 when Israel was
officially recognized as a state and granted sovereignty as a nation within Palestine by the United
Nations. This is when, technically, the political Zionist movement ended and the ideology of
Zionism began, and as such, has become a much-debated topic. Some would say that Zionism has
become a motivation for racism, or a reaction against anti-Semitism. Others believe that Zionism
as it currently exists is merely Jewish patriotism.

Associated with Jewish Zionism is Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism is simply Gentile support
of Jewish Zionism as based on the promises to Israel found in the Bible, passages such as Jeremiah
32 and Ezekiel 34. Christian Zionists are primarily evangelical and give support in any way
possible to the Jewish state of Israel. The return of the Jews to the Promised Land is the fulfillment
of prophecy and is seen, especially by dispensationalists, as a sign that the world has entered the
End Times.

Torah: Written Torah; Oral Torah; *Mishnah (c. 200 CE); Talmud ; the Pentateuch

History of Christianity

Ref: E. de Pressensé (1870, translated by Annie Harwood), The early years of Christianity,
The apostolic era.

https://archive.org/details/earlyyearsofchr00pres (downloadable)

*Christianity, ‘the *Way’; ‘the Way of the Mashiah’ (‘Mashianity’); Christianism

B. Used outside the text for translation work of IRENT:

 Christianism(s) – Christian religions. [An inclusive term for various
Christian or self-claimed Christian religions, denominations, and sects. It is
in contrast to ‘Christianity’, which itself is often counted as a religion.
Whether *orthodox, *heterodox or cult, they are all connected to one slender
thread – ‘he (ho Iesous) is who he is, and he is who he claimed to be’, whether
the name is translated as ‘Jesus’ or ‘Yeshua’, etc. They are all separated out
into each position as they differ on who he is and how he claimed to be who
he is. The two branches of Christianism are those claiming that ‘Jesus/Yeshua
is God’ and those claiming that ‘Jesus/Yeshua is not God’. Cf. Jehovah’s
Witnesses: ‘Jesus is a god, mighty, but not the almighty God as Jehovah is’.
Both positions, logically contradictory, are ironically not incorrect; each side
simply uses the words ‘God/god’ as well as ‘is’ in different sense.] [Note:
orthodox means not more than to be true to their own beliefs and claims –
their own truths.]

*Christianity; *Mashianity:
The common term ‘Christianity’ which is now more or less a collective term
for Christianisms (Christian religions).a

The term ‘Messianism’ is of different nuance and connotation, as a

movement (generic term of ‘messianic movement’ and ‘messianic’) (cf.
‘Messianics’) from within the Second Temple Judaism.

Shortly afterwards with passing-away of the twelve Apostles, it has been

changed to the Hellenistic Christianity and then Constantine Catholic
Christianity. In the true original tradition of the Apostolic Biblical
Christianity the unadulterated term is proposed – ‘Mashianity’ which is what
the Scripture truly presents. [Note: the word ‘Messianity’ is used for the name
of a Japanese non-Christian cult.]

‘Semitic Christianity’; ‘’ for Jesus’;

History of Christianity.

Anti-Semitism;
www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/contents.htm Crimes of Christianity – Ch.
Rise of Papacy; Ch. IX. The Crusades.

a
‘Christianity as a religion’ vs. ‘Christianity without religion’ vs. ‘a religion (e.g. Christianism) from
Christianity’. Cf. ‘religion(s)’ vs. ‘faith(s)’ vs. ‘belief(s). [Examples of Christianism –Catholicism
(Constantine and medieval), Protestantism, Lutheranism, etc. – they are not a same religion, but religions of
different variety – human religious traditions and practices. Practice of a religion – ‘entertainment
element’] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity (1) Chalcedonian vs. (2) Oriental
Orthodoxy; the former into (a) the Eastern Orthodox Church and (b) Roman Catholic Church, which splits
off the Protestantism.]
The word ‘Jews’ and Anti-Semitic reading of N.T.

• G-Jn – the word ‘Jews’ as frequently appearing G-Jn is used in the

sense of Yehudim of ruling authority, not Yehudim people.

• Mt 27:25 ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children here’ – one
of the most misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied passages in
the Bible throughout the history and practice of Christian Churches.
( www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html ) [‘blood on someone; blood
on someone’s head – Hebrew expression (e.g. Deu 19:10; Jos 2:19;
2Sam 3:28–29; 1Kg 2:33; Jer 26:15; Ezk 18:13).] [‘our children here’,
i.e. metonymic for people in Yerusalem there with them. (Similar usage
in Mt 23:37 //Lk 23:28).]

Ethno-religious Christian anti-Semitic slur – ‘Christ killer’; ‘Christ-killer’;

‘Murderers of God, the lawless nation of the Jews is’

<Copied from Essential Vocabulary for reading the New Testament r.8.3

*Yehudim (pl.) /> *Jews [Cf. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. [Cf. Israel, Israelite; Judean; Judaic];
Yehudi (sing.) /> ‘Jew’;

[Note; ‘Jews’ - different sense, connotation, association, and usage. It may well be limited to the
people after the Fall of Jerusalem and cessation of Temple-based Yehudism which was replaced by
the rabbinic Judaism of the people in Diaspora. Problem of the word ‘Jews’ colored with
anachronism and anti-Semitism is unfit for a translation word in the whole Bible. E.g. Jn 4:22
‘salvation is of the Jews (/from the Jews’ is a preposterous. This also applies to the word ‘Jewish’ (–
people or religion), and Judaism (religion) - which do not fit in the Bible text not only for translation
but also understanding and interpretation.

[On history of the word ‘Jews’, see https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/the-word-

jew-is-not-in-the-bible/

“The word “Jew” did not come into existence until the year 1775. (When it was first
introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication,
inference and innuendo was ‘Judean’.
“… In both the Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament Greek, the word to be
translated is always meant to be Judah or Judahite(s), of the physical tribe and stock of Judah.
And Jews today are not of the tribe of Judah.”]
“…Today, those who are known as Jews are in fact the non-Semitic and non-Israelite
Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Samaritans, who in later times joined small numbers of other
races that converted to Judaism/Pharisaism: Polish, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, etc. These
latter ones form a minority known as European Jews who, when coupled with the Ashkenazim,
constitute a majority against the darker-skinned Samaritan, Sephardic, and African Jews.”
“… The word “Jew” as we understand it today is NOT in the bible. (Suggested is to replace it
with Judahite.’

It has been completely hollowed out of its “Judean” or “Judahite” meaning, because the
proselytized Rabbinists who hijacked it are not of the tribe of Judah.
A faith, a religion, Christian religions (‘Christianism’)

Note: the English word ‘*Christian’ as a noun – person. As adj. it is ‘of

Christians’ or ‘of Christian things’. It does not have a sense of ‘of Christ’.
[Compare the adjectives natural for ‘nature’ vis-à-vis ‘of nature’. Not all
things Christian are things related to Christ, nor Messiah. Christian Messiah
is not same as the Mashiah in the N.T., but a created one out from Church
traditions, teachings, practices, and power – all of these are human; some
claim to be ‘divine’ – whatever the word ‘divine’ signify.

Religion vs. Christianity vs. Jesus religion:

“Christianity is a religion”, “Is Christianity a religion?” “Christianity is not a

religion”, ‘Christianity as a religion’, ‘Christianity without religion’, etc.

• “Christianity is not a religion” https://philippians1v21.wordpress.com/why-

believe-in-jesus/why-christianity-is-not-a-religion/
• www.ptm.org/cwr/info/interviewCWR.htm ‘Christianity with the religion’
• www.dragonfly75.com/book/noreligion.html ‘Christianity without religion’
• ‘www.answering-christianity.com/christian_religion.htm ‘Christianity IS a
religion’

All of these statements (in fact, any kind of *statement) are by and large
incomplete without precise agreed-upon definition of the words ‘Christianity’,
‘religion’, and ‘the religion’. Most can readily acknowledge that Catholicism,
Protestantism, etc. is Christianity (or a Christian religion/faith). At most, what
can be said without reservation is “Christianity is a religion not like others.”

One thing is certain. Christianity, whatever it should mean, has become a

religion - religion by power, of power, and for power to be over people. [Power
of a religion or a church is unrelated to the creative Power of Elohim.]

As a religion, which is out of human endeavor, from the seed of the post-Easter
faith in Him, it has well established in 4th century CE, as a Constantine Catholic
Church (along with Trinitarian doctrine – see a separate file on this), which took
over from the Hellenic Christianity, the latter was an offshoot of ‘Messianic
Judaism’ (Apostolic Christianity) to which the disciples of Yeshua belonged.
Christianity was NOT founded by Yeshua, nor by His twelve Apostles or Paulos.
Christianity is a collection of different brands of a religion comprising hundreds of
denominations. A better term would be Christianism.

So-called Christianity is a religion of Christians; so-called Christians are people

with Christianity as their religion.
 Cf. related jargons - ‘Christ-centered’ ‘authentic’ Christianity’; Cosmic
Christianity; Mystic Christianity

Related terms and expressions:

*Christianism – a neologism for Christianity as a religion or Christianity-

derived religion. The term is in line with other religions, such as Islamism,
Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Most of time when one hears ‘Christianity’, it is not
what it is meant, but rather Christianism. [E.g. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox
Churches (split off 1054 CE), Protestantism, Lutheranism, Calvinism,
Presbyterian (John Knox); Anglicanism, Episcopalians, Methodist
(Episcopalian), Puritans → Congregational; Quakers (‘Society of Friends’);
Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, etc. Arianism. https://youtu.be/OTAz7XIUy_0
- in the last segment.

*Messianism (- in the sense of ‘Messianic movement’); *Christendom;

Mashianity; Churchianity (dated 1837); Jesusism a ; Christianism;
40F40F

Christomonism11; monism b; modalism; *Paulismc; Pauline Christianity;

41F41F

a
Jesusism or Jesuism – a neologism refers to philosophy and teaching of Jesus as a human, as
distinct from Paulism. However it has a nuance of worshiping Jesus as God (often Jesus = Jehovah),
different from 'Jesus Religion' (with 'Jesus' as the name of God – a degenerated form of
Trinitarianism) Cf. Christocentrism; Christomonism; Christological monism;
b
Monism: reduction of all processes, structures, concepts, etc., to a single governing principle; the
theoretical explanation of everything in terms of one principle.
c
Paulism vs. Teachings of Yeshua – Paul clarified: (1) Dying to one’s self, participating the death
of the Mashiah; (2) Receiving righteousness before God as God’s grace through the faith in Yeshua
the Mashiah; (3).Fulfilling righteousness before men through sanctification in keeping God’s
commands and Torah through Yeshua the Mashiah; (4) ‘Israel’ vs. ‘Gentiles; and the Renewed
Covenant in Yeshua the Mashiah vs. the former Abrahamic Covenant;
Reading material: Ref. http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/557/456 Matthew’s
anti-Paulinism: A neglected feature of Matthean studies
[Ref: www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/06/christianity-by-the-numbers/ -
demographic pie charts.
Ref: www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/05/what-is-the-difference-between-and-
evangelical-and-a-fundamentalist/ ‘liberalism’ ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘evangelicalism’ of
the Protestant Churches.]

*Christianity, a usually designated as a religion b, is actually not a single religion, but a

42F42F 43F43F

collective term for Christian regions, sect, cults, or denominations. Ever since the rise of
Constantine Catholic Church in the mid-4th century, it has become to a hierarchical power
organization with religious garb (pomp, pride, titles, and rituals) – far divergent from the
teaching of the Mashiah and the movement by His followers. c The Church teaching is a
4F4F

collection of various and varied products of human mind in human traditions and practices
– often contradictory, confusing, convoluted, and incompatible – of Christian religions, by
the religions, from the religions, and for the religions. As for a religion, the term ‘Catholic
Church religion’ is more accurate than ‘Catholicism’ which sounds like an ideology (like
Marxism, Scientism, Evolutionism, etc.)

A practical and realistic definition of Christianity – a collective term for Christian religions,
churches, traditions and practices with dogmas and doctrines as well as divisive and divided
institutions.

The term Christianity as an inside word, however, is often used in the sense of the teaching
itself. Here the problem is that it fails to come clear to non-Christians as to what is supposed
to be meant. In other words, in the minds of non-Christians, Christianity with its warts-and-
all d gets mixed up with the genuine teaching of the Mashiah e. The term *Mashianity f, a
45F45F 46F46F 47F47F

neologism, is found eminently suitable to represent the Way of Mashiah with its teaching.

Act 22:4 ‘The Way’ ░░ [= 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22] [i.e. ‘the Way of the Lord’ (Act 18:25.
Cf. ‘the Way of Elohim’- 18:26) = teaching of Mashiah (> Messiah) – true definition of
‘Christianity’ (< ‘Mashianity’ – neologism).

Ref. http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol07/paulinism_bruce.pdf F. F. Bruce, “Some Thoughts

on Paul and Paulinism”
a
‘Christianity’ as a religion which founded by ‘Jesus Christ’ about 2000 years ago, a religion of
‘Christians’. Its instution is called ‘Church’, though there is not a single unity. Similar to
christendom with different nuance and usage.
b
The phrase Christianity without the Religion (e.g. in www.ptm.org – acronym CWR) may be
understood as ‘Christianity apart from religion’, that is, ‘without having to do anything with
established ecclesial religions’.
c
The teaching, taking life from the Mashiah, is embodied in in the life of His people, collectively
as the living Apostolic Biblical Community of Mashiah.
d
‘warts and all’ – euphemism of ‘evilness and goodness’ shown in the history of Christianity as a religion.
e
Mashiah – Hebrew transliterate, not anglicized word ‘messiah’. Since the common English word ‘messiah’
is not exclusively Biblical term, it is unfit for a translation word of the Scripture, either Hebrew or Greek
word, to be suitable for the vocabulary for the People of Book.
f
Cf. the word ‘Messianity’ is a new-age cult in Japan, unrelated to Christianity, nor to
Mashiah. Not clear how an English word of neologism got into Japanese setting. It is one
example of degenerate use of the word ‘messiah’ unrelated to the Biblical word.
*Christian, Mashian, Messianic, Messianist;

Etymologically speaking, the word ‘Christian’ is derived from Act 11:26. (The
word also appears Act 26:28; 1Pe 4:16.) However, to call those in the first
century as Christians – those we have here – is preposterous and anachronistic.
They were not ‘Christians’ in the sense the English word carries.

‘Jesus’ may be a ‘Christian’ as some like to see, but the historical Yeshua was
not a Christian in any sense of the word. He did not found a ‘Church’. The so-
called Christanity was not in existence in the early part of the first century CE.
Its beginning should be when Constantine Catholic Church emerged to ascend
in power, surely not Apostolic Biblical Community of Mashiah followers. [Cf.
we can say Marx was a Marxist, and he cannot be otherwise. He was the first
Marxist.]

Judaism vs. Christianity – the partings of the two ways:

After his death his followers, all of whom were Jews like Jesus himself, constituted a Jewish
movement, perhaps a sect, meeting and praying regularly in the temple of Jerusalem and
interacting with other Jewish worshipers. (At least this is the story in the opening chapters
of Acts.) And yet before very long the Jesus movement was no longer Jewish; it became
something different, a social phenomenon of its own -

The ways that two groups of people parted led to the development of (Constantine Catholic)
Christianity. It is not quite correct to label it as 'separation of Christianity from Judaism'

Ref: Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and
Literature (2009)

INTRODUCTION

Jewish–Christian dialogue has in some sense existed since the inception of Christianity.
Recent historical research has shown that much in both Judaism and Christianity,
particularly in the Middle Ages, is really but a result of the interaction between them.
This, however, is by no means a conclusion accepted by all. From the Jewish side,
particularly in Orthodox circles, there is the position maintaining the independence of
Judaism from outside influences including Christianity. Traditional Christian theology,
on the other hand, held to a supercessionist view in which Judaism was seen merely as a
historical preparation for the later revelation of Christianity. Most contemporary scholars
do in fact accept the principle of inter-action. Some, hoping to overcome supercessionist
theology, emphasized the continuing debt of Christianity to Judaism well into the second
century CE. Recently, the possibility of early Christian influence upon Jewish traditions
gained momentum, assuming that even Jewish Bible interpretation originally developed
in the context of a conscious polemic with Church Fathers.

Inquiry into the matter of interaction and influence gives rise to the question as to when
and how Judaism and Christianity became two distinct religions. Historically speaking,
 we know that very early on Christians in Palestine constituted a sect within Judaism.
Understandably, scholars have been unable to give a precise date as to when and how the
‘parting of the ways’ took place. The split between Judaism and Christianity was pushed
ahead further and further until recent works claimed that the ways never parted at all.

It may of course be argued that interactions are of two kinds: conscious and unconscious.
Quite often a conscious rejection may go hand in hand with unconscious appropriation
and transformation. The present volume takes a bold step forward by assuming that no
historical period can be excluded from the interactive process between Judaism and
Christianity, conscious or unconscious, as a polemical rejection or as tacit appropriation.
Each period must be studied on its own merits to assess the exact nature of the interaction.
Perhaps there is no need to determine the point when or where the ‘parting of the ways’
took place, nor is it necessary to assume that ‘the ways never parted’ at all, as the
interactions between the two religions change and vary in each period.

Even in the long periods during which both religions were not prepared to accept the
possibility that they share aspects of a common heritage, the interactive process is at work
both in conscious polemic and unconscious mutual influence.

The significance of their having been an interactive relationship between Judaism and
Christianity throughout the ages has become even more pronounced as the concept of
dialogue between religions became popular in the period following World War II.
Jewish–Christian dialogue has become in the last half-century an institution of Western
civilization. In this spirit, the editors of this volume have sought to bring before the public
the following essays considering the complex relationships existing between Judaism and
Christianity in a broad spectrum of historical periods and disciplines while making use of
a wide variety of methodological orientations. …

Eric Ottenheijm, “Learning and Practising: Uses of an Early Jewish Discourse In

Matthew (7:24–27) And Rabbinic Literature”] “ …Early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism
are the outgrowth of complex socio-religious and political developments in the Jewish world of
the first century, in particular the decades after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE. This era witnessed
the birth pangs of two social realities that in retrospect may be named ‘rabbinic Judaism’ and
‘Christianity’. However, social reality seldom reflects what essentialist terminology suggests. This
holds especially true for areas such as northern Palestine or Syria, where socio-religious
borderlines were not clear-cut and, as late as in the fourth century, people even accepted both
designations (Kraft 2003, 92–93). It is our contention that at the end of the first century, both
communities shared discourses but used them in different, even polemical ways. This becomes
clear when we compare the topic of learning and doing in the Gospel of Matthew with early
rabbinic literature, …”

Ref: Rabbi Moshe Reiss, THE PARTING OF THE WAY AND THE ROAD NEVER
TAKEN www.moshereiss.org/christianity/08_parting/08_parting.htm

Shanks and Vermes, Ed. (2013), Partings—How Judaism & Christianity Became Two

Julie Galambush, Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers
Created a Christian Book
www.barnesandnoble.com/sample/read/9780060596361
Shaye J.D. Cohen, Ways that parted
James D.G. Dunn (2006), The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and
Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity

Religion vs. Christianity (Mashianity); Gospel vs. Christianity:

The Gospel with the New Testament is not that which provides ‘Christianity’ as a
religion of organized power structure or ideological. The content of theology from
human mind is derived and metamorphosed from the teaching of Mashiah Yeshua
in the Gospels. E.g. the varied creationism ideas are human opinions and there is no
single verse to support them in the N.T. There are human interpretations based on a
few places in the TaNaKh (O.T.).

Churchianity (pejorative)

• 1789, Samuel Parr, (Ref. John Johnstone, editor, The works of Samuel Parr, ...: With
memoirs of his life and writings, and a selection from his correspondence, volume 1,
published 1828, page 341:
In October, 1789 (says Dr. Parr in the Sequel, p.99), when I preached for the Charity
Schools at Birmingham, I earnestly recommended to the audience two admirable
sermons which Dr. Priestley had written, &c. &c. / This commendation gave great
offence; the name of the arch-heretic was poison to the orthodox ears of many of the
congregation. One of them in the vestry, immediately after the sermon, ventured even
to expostulate with the preacher; and to represent to him that the sermon recommended
might he admirable and good Christian doctrine, but that the author was an enemy to
the Church, and therefore ought never to be named within its sacred precincts. Parr
heard him out, and then calmly replied, "Sir, you are the best vindicator of
Churchianity I ever knew."
• 1852, Edwin Paxton Hood, Lamps of the temple: shadows from the lights of the modern
pulpit, page 329:
Such religion is Churchianity; it is not Christianity. Christianity means the religion
where Christ is all; Churchianity, the religion where the Church is all
• 2002, Charles Jenkins, Keeping Sane in a Crazy World, page 84:
The Priest and Levite represent Churchly Movements, They represented Churchianity
that is powerless to lift suffering humanity. What is wrong with the world today is that
we have too much Churchianity and too little Christianity

Any practices of Christianity that are viewed as placing a larger emphasis on the habits
of church life or the institutional traditions of the church than on theology and spiritual
teachings; The quality of being too church-focused.

Churchanity – characterized by religiosity, liturgical, ritual, tradition-and doctrine-

bounded power structure.

After death of Yeshua, yet before very long the Jesus movement was no longer Jewish; it became
something different, a social phenomenon of its own, sometimes called “the separation of
Christianity from Judaism,” usually called “the parting of the ways”
… The parting of the ways is about people, societies, and institutions, not about disembodied truth
claims or the abstractions “Judaism” and “Christianity” (or rather, ‘Christianism).
… The parting of the ways involves people whom we call “Jews” and “Christians,” even if our
ancient sources do not always use these labels. Rabbinic texts, for example, never use the term
 “Judaism” and never refer to the collectivity of Israel as “Jews.” Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with
Trypho the Jew never uses the term “Christianity”.
… There were no mixed communities of Jews and Christians, except of course for
Christian communities which numbered among their members Jews who had converted
to Christianity, and except for Jewish communities which numbered among their
members Christians who had converted to Judaism. But absent conversion, the
boundaries between the Jewish and the Christian communities were clear enough and
stable enough. As the century proceeded, the boundary would become ever clearer and
ever more stable. …

[from Shaye Cohen] The ways that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish ... - DASH

The War of Images: An Artistic Approach to the Parting of the Ways

Neither Jew Nor Greek?: Constructing Early Christianity by Judith Lieu

Etymology
Christianity
c.1300, cristente, "Christians as a whole; state of being a Christian," from Old French
crestienté "Christendom; spiritual authority; baptism" (Modern French chrétienté),
from Church Latin christianitatem (nominative christianitas), noun of state from
christianus (see Christian). Gradually re-spelled to conform with Latin. Christendom is
the older word for it. Old English also had cristennes.
Christendom (- different nuance, connotation, and association from ‘Christianity’
Old English cristendom "Christianity, state of being a Christian," from cristen (see
Christian) + -dom, suffix of condition or quality. The native formation, crowded out by
Latinate Christianity except for sense "lands where Christianity is the dominant
religion" (late 14c.). Similar formations in Scandinavian languages.
Christianism)
1560s, "Christianity," from Christian + -ism. From c.2004 in reference to politicized
fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. Related: Christianist.

*Denominations; Orthodoxy and heterodoxy; heresy; sects; *cults

[words – ‘Gentile’ ‘pagan’ ‘heathen’. Pagan gods in N.T. is of Hellenism, not

much of oriental religions. Converts, proselytes;

Sociological and religious terms – church, ecclesia, denomination, sect, *cult, religions
(religionism), religious movement; faddism, schism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
[In The Future of Religion Secularization, Revival, and Cult formation (1985), the
sociologists Stark and Bainbridge comment “… in the beginning, all religion are obscure,
tiny, deviant cult movements.”]

What is a cult?

(in different senses – theological vs. sociological)

Any religion (sect, church) which promises comfort and provides ready-made answers to all
the life’s questions is a cult.

A *cult is found as any religion, paganism, denomination, church, sect, or religious and
pseudo-religious movement which began with one man (or woman) who attracted followers
and may be a dominant personality (‘messiah’ type) holding all the authority; may produces
small heretical group which keeps them anonymous; its core message is about ‘how to’ –
how to attain something or some idea and about how to do – think, behave, act, talk – in the
prescribed way;
may often have its own Bible (translation); discourage to read and listen only what are
allowed, if not outright prohibit (as did the Catholics once to keep the Bible on the top in
the list of Prohibition); certain ritual as the center of their cultic belief system (such as
‘tongue-speaking’ for Pentecostals, Charismatics a , and other innocuous names, such as
48F48F

living truth fellowship); often has mantra to use invoke their God or gods. Psychological
elation, euphoria, ecstasy; Speech purported to be ‘prophecies’, which borders on prediction
game, rather than delivering the message the Scripture reveals; psychological techniques –
hypnosis, mass hypnosis, frenzy exhibitionism with negation of self; deviant behavior
becomes acceptable (esp. sexual activity). People in a cult does not see it as a cult, and
vehemently denies it and gets upset when challenged; they lose freedom as any human being
entitled as being created after God’s image. Paradoxically they feel content in their bondage;
as it does provide them comfort. [Word thesaurus – ‘jargon’, nonsense, gibberish, mantra,
abracadabra, charismatic babbling. charm. amulet]

Different religions (‘beliefs’):

Christian – Denominations, Catholicism (Cf. Western Roman vs. Eastern Orthodox),
Protestantism, Puritanism, Pentecostalism, Methodism, etc. Cf. Christianity as a religion;
Christianisms; [Cf. Christendom]; ‘Christianity without religion’;

a
http://charismatic-heresy.blogspot.com/2006/11/waking-dead.html on Charismatic Renewal revives
several heresies:
Gnosticism - claims a secret knowledge; making its possessors the only true believers. Historically the
Church condemns Gnosticism, St Paul in his letter to Timothy called it "Profane novelties of words” and
“oppositions of knowledge”. Cf. https://carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-thomas-belong-in-the-new-testament ;

Cf. Docetism
<<Docetism is a term used to refer to a theological perspective among some in the early
church who regarded the sufferings and the human aspects of Christ as imaginary or
apparent instead of being part of a real incarnation. The basic thesis of such docetics was
that if Christ suffered he was not divine, and if he was God he could not suffer. The
combination of the two natures, Son of David and Son of God, affirmed by Paul in Rm 1:3
- 4 was apparently already under attack in the Johannine community (see 1Jn 4:2; 2Jn 7).
Docetic thinking became an integral part of the perspectives of Gnostics, who viewed Jesus
as the alien messenger from outside the present evil world and one who was untouched by
the evil creator. This alien Jesus came to awaken Gnostics to their destiny outside the realm
of creation. While the framers of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds were opposed to docetic
teaching and clearly assumed the two natures of Jesus, the drafters of the Definition of
Chalcedon (451 AD) made explicit the Christian teaching concerning Jesus Christ as "truly
God and truly man".>> http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/docetism.htm

Montanism - claims to operate under a "new outpouring of the Spirit" and that the Holy Spirit was
supplementing the revelation of Christ. The Montanists were condemned by Pope St. Zephyrinus. (199-
217)
Messalianism - originated in Mesopotamia in CE 360. The Messalians believed prayer was the only way to
possessing the Holy Spirit. They were condemned by various bishops and councils of the Church.
Nominalism is a modern day theory claiming there are no absolutes, except senses and feelings. [This
philosophy led to the denial of several doctrines of the Church; including the divinity of Christ.]
Abby Day (2013), Believing in Belonging: Belief and Social Identity in the Modern World, Ch. 9
Understanding Christian Nominalism: Rethinking Christian Identity. p. 174f.
http://jonathanmair.com/abby-days-believing-in-belonging-review/ )
Non-Christian – Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Rabbinic Judaism (Hasidism vs.
Misnagdim); various native indigenous beliefs and taboo systems, New Age Movement
(‘NAV’, new ageism) a, shamanism,
49F49F

Cf. *proselytism; *evangelicalism; *fundamentalism b ; heterodoxy; schism;

dispensationalism (not to be mixed up ‘dispensation’ a technical religious jargon, e.g. ‘Old
Testament dispensation’); doctrinism; Legalism; Idol-worship; Idolatry; Icon-worship;
ecclesiolatry; paganism; religious syncretism; theocrasia (fusion of one god with another.
E.g. Christianism + Mithraism)

Pentecostal Charismatic cult. [Worshiping the Holy Ghost; tongue-speaking babbling]

Prosperity gospel cult – e.g. ‘Pure Gospel Church’ – Korean cult = ‘Full Gospel Church’
with ‘기복 신앙’ in mindset (祈福 信仰– related also with 복卜 ‘fortune’ brought down
by a shaman); ‘Five Blessings’ (오복 五福 in a traditional oriental tradition as well as other
religious traditions; also Six Blessings 육복 六福, etc.). Cf. 'purpose driven'

Cf. Interpretatio graeca (Latin, "Greek translation or interpretation by means of Greek [models]") –
a discourse or (a to and from discussion) in which ancient Greek religious concepts and practices,
deities and myths are used to interpret or attempt to understand the mythology and religion of other
cultures. It is thus a methodology that looks for equivalencies and shared characteristics.

Cult of Christianity
– a cult off Christianity; a Christian cult; Cf. Christianity as a cult.
www.apologeticsindex.org/2765-cult-of-christianity
• Alan Gomes (1995), Unmasking The Cults,

• Jan Karel van Baalen (1923), The Chaos of Cults: Studies in Present Day Isms

• H. Wayne House, Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements

• Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults – (1) edited by Ravi Zacharias with Jill and Kevin Rische vs. (2)
edited by Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino

Believers, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, Baptists Puritans,

Messianists, Calvinists, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals; Mormons; Jehovah’s
Witnesses; Gentiles, pagans, heathen; heretics; Schismatic; asceticism; dissidents;
deists vs. theists; atheists; agnostics; ethno-linguistic people groups; religious people
groups; agnostic Christian;

a
New Age Movement – ref. http://carm.org/new-age-what
b
fundamentalism – ref. Harvey Cox (2009 ), The Future of Faith, [p. 141 The Pathos of
Fundamentalism - <<… Fundamentalists collapse faith into belief. They define themselves by
their unyielding insistence that faith consists in believing on certain “fundamentals’… But the
fundamentalist obsession with correct beliefs often makes faith, in its biblical sense, more
elusive. It replaces faith as a primary life orientation with a stalwart insistence on holding to
certain prescribed doctrinal ideas, and this in turn often promotes a kind of taut defensiveness
and spiritual pride that are not in keeping the love ethics of [their] Jesus.>>]
*Catholicism

Encyclicals

Reading material -
The Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Papal Documents
www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/

www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines

“No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may
want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the
deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their
entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since
the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred
Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change.” – Satanic message

[End of the File]

1
The Greek phrase ‘unclean spirit’ in the N.T. which is equivalent to demonic spirit-force.1
E.g.
• to akatharton pneuma Mt 12:43 ‘the unclean spirit’ - /unclean spirit – most, KJV++; /x:
foul spirit – TCNT, GSNT, WNT; /x: defiling spirit – ALT mg, MSG; /x: evil spirit – NIV
trio, GW, GNB, CEV, ERV, NLT, AUV, PNT; /x: tarnished spirit – Cass; /
• tois punemasin tois akathartois Mk 1:27;
Cf.
• pneumata daimoniōn – Rev 16:14;
• pneuma daimoniou akahdachou – Lk 4:33; demonic unclean spirit ; /x: spirit of
unclean demon – NET, ESV trio, NASB, NKJV; /a spirit of an unclean devil –
KJV;
2
References on the related terms of anthropology:
http://lamc.ulb.ac.be/IMG/pdf/Rethinking_Ethnicity-
_Arguments_and_explorations.pdf
http://aotcpress.com/articles/facing-religion-anthropology/
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/metaphysical-
anthropology/forum/topics/what-is-metaphysical-anthropology
Cf. tripartite anthropology – Seeing human person as ‘body, mind, spirit’ is a model to describe the
nature of human person.
Reading material: www.academia.edu/2167455/Max_Schelers_tripartite_anthropology
Watchman Nee (1927), Spiritual Man

3
Ref. http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/Objectivism/Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness.pdf
Ayn Rand (1964), The Virtue of Selfishness. – Check out her definitions of various terms, not
so much for her philosophy of objectivism. I find her definition of ‘happiness’ is of limited
insight.
Ayn Rand – Ch. 1. The Objectivist Ethic
“ … The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as
the ethical purpose of every individual man. (p. 21)
“ … To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s
highest moral purpose. … Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy” –
… To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest
purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing
rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and
concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives
one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure
happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—
what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an
end in itself. …” (p. 25).

4
Ref.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218043610/http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/Objectivism/Ayn%20Rand%20-
%20The%20Virtue%20of%20Selfishness.pdf

Ayn Rand (1964), The Virtue of Selfishness. – Check out her definitions of various terms, not
so much for her philosophy of objectivism. I find her definition of ‘happiness’ is of limited
insight.

Ayn Rand – Ch. 1. The Objectivist Ethic

“ … The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—
and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man. (p. 21)
“ … To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own
happiness is man’s highest moral purpose. … Happiness is a state of
non-contradictory joy” –
… To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own
happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same
achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the
activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and
concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing
happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it.
And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in
itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what
one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact
that life is an end in itself. …” (p. 25).

5
The Greek phrase ‘unclean spirit’ in the N.T. which is equivalent to demonic spirit-force.
E.g.
• to akatharton pneuma Mt 12:43 ‘the unclean spirit’ - /unclean spirit – most, KJV++; /x:
foul spirit – TCNT, GSNT, WNT; /x: defiling spirit – ALT mg, MSG; /x: evil spirit –
NIV trio, GW, GNB, CEV, ERV, NLT, AUV, PNT; /x: tarnished spirit – Cass; /
• tois punemasin tois akathartois Mk 1:27;
Cf.
• pneumata daimoniōn – Rev 16:14;
 • pneuma daimoniou akahdachou – Lk 4:33; demonic unclean spirit ; /x: spirit of
unclean demon – NET, ESV trio, NASB, NKJV; /a spirit of an unclean devil –
KJV;
6
‘*Evangelicals’ with its root meaning of Gospel people, is an ambiguous moniker.

• www.9marks.org/journal/who-exactly-are-evangelicals
• www.gallup.com/poll/17041/who-evangelicals.aspx

“Two Approaches to Defining Evangelicals

Broadly speaking, there are two basic ways to approach the objective of defining evangelicals:
(1) adherence to some specific belief or religious practice criteria … – The obvious problem
with any procedure that qualifies people as evangelical based on agreement with a set of
statements is the lack of consensus on what those statements should be. There are so many
different possible criteria, one could envision a series of 20 or more statements necessary for
individuals to agree with in order to be included under the "evangelical" umbrella. and
(2) self-definition (that is, just asking people whether they consider themselves evangelical). –
This approach outlined is much simpler, focusing primarily on a simple self-definitional
question: "Would you describe yourself as a 'born again' or evangelical?" … Further
Restrictions on Self-Definitional Criteria – Some individuals who identify themselves as
evangelicals are members of subgroups that many informed observers would agree don't fit in
an evangelical category as conceived. These would include, in particular, people who are not
Christian (but who agree with the "born again or evangelical" criterion). Additionally, for
practical purposes, it is often reasonable to exclude nonwhites and Catholics from the
evangelical category. … Evangelicals and Religiosity
Are these evangelicals (as defined) indeed more religious than average Americans -- as we
would expect?”

7
Concordance study on the word ‘religion’ itself as appearing in English Bible translations:

*religion

Almost all of Greek words which are translated as ‘religion’ not uniformly in
English translation are best rendered differently, esp. since the word is now a
highly technical term in current English usage.

thrēskeia [thrēskeuō ‘perform cultic service’, religion as punctilious

expression of devotion to transcendent beings – Danker p. 171]
• Act 26:5 (/high doctrine – Etheridge, Murdock); /religious tradition –
IRENT (Paul was not using here a technical term ‘religion’ as such.)
• Jas 1:26, 27 (/worship – Murdock; service – Etheridge); /religious
practice – IRENT;
• Col 2:18 (~ of the angels): /cultic devotion – IRENT; /x: religious
worship – ALT, Diagl; /x: worship - most; /a form of worship – NWT;
/x: ritual – CLV; /xx: obsession (with angels) – MSG; /

cf. threskos ‘religious’ (- connotation of ‘religiosity’) < ‘religiously observant’

– JNT; Jas 1:26;
 Greek words translated inappropriately as ‘religion’ by many Bibles.

deisidaimonia Act 25:19; (/worship – Etheridge, Murdock)

eusebeia 1Ti 3:16; 4:8; 6:5, 6; 2Ti 3:5; Tit_1:1
cf. eusebeō 1Ti 5:4;
ethelothrēskeia (self-devised form of worship); Col 2:23; /
theosebeia 1Ti 2:10;

Greek words translated irresponsibly as ‘religion’ in a few Bibles.

homologia – Heb 3:1, 4:14 (GSNT)

diakonia – 2Co 3:7, 8, 9 (GSNT)
latreia – Heb 9:1 (Geneva)
he odos tēs aētheias – 2Pe 2:2 (WNT)
odon – Act 22:4; Way of religion (Mft)
bebēlos – 1Ti 1:9- ungodly; /xxx: have no religion (ERV); /
prosēlutos – Act 13:43; converts to the Jewish religion ( ERV); /

Cf. Gal 1:13, 14; en tō Ioudasmō – ‘in the Judaic way of life’ - IRENT
[Ioudaismos –/> Pharisaic Judaism – ARJ; /Yehudism; /x: *Judaism – (problem
of associating with rabbinic Judaism developed in Diaspora); /x: Jewish religion
– GW] – the concept is not as a religion (such as rabbinic Judaism)

Frequency of the word ‘religion’ in the Bible translation:

Most x5 – KJV, NIV, ALT, ESV, NKJV, NASB. etc.

Act 25:19; 26:5; Jas 1:26, 27; Col 2:23;
NET Act 25:19; 26:5; Jas 1:26, 27; 2Ti 3:5; 1Ti 3:16;
HCSB Act 25:19; 26:5; Jas 1:26, 27; 2Ti 3:5; 1Ti 5:4;

Mft x14; TCNT x15; GW x7; GNB x13; CEV x8; ERV x10 (+ 1); NLT x6; AUV
x6 (+ 14 in expansion notes); BBE x19;

In PNT the word ‘religion’ is unnecessary in Gal 4:10; 2Th 2:4. GW, CEV,
ERV, etc. – have many unnecessary ones

8
Various defintions and explanations of spirituality: random collections from the web.

D.A. Carson, When is spirituality spiritual? Reflections on some problems of

definition; JETS 37/3 (September 1994) 381-394
(1) Sun Chae Hwang (2012), “A Theological Analysis of the Non-Church Movement in Korea with a
Special Reference to the Formation of its Spirituality” (a thesis paper for M.Ph.): p. 30 “… The concept
of spirituality is not limited to the Christian religion and is in fact increasingly being used even beyond
explicitly religious circles. When viewed in this broad sense, spirituality is used to depict an element of
human experience. Spirituality here refers to the authentic human search for ultimate value, or the human
person’s “striving to attain the highest ideal or goal. [Walter Principe, “Toward Defining Spirituality”]
Thus, in this sense of the term, spirituality involves a “progressive, consciously pursued, personal
integration through self-transcendence within and toward the horizon of ultimate concern. … In
Christianity, spirituality can be defined as a way of seeking God and responding to the call to the holiness
of life. It is the responsibility of a person to recognize, acknowledge, and respond to God’s action in
one’s life. Spirituality is a stance (and state) out of which a person lives and acts and prays. It is a way
of expressing one’s relationship to God, to others, and to the whole of creation, including one’s
relationship to oneself”

(2) James A. Wiseman, Spirituality and Mysticism - A Global View

“… The first certain appearance of this word in Christian literature dates from the fifth century, in a
letter that was once ascribed to St. Jerome but is now considered to have been written by someone else.
It is addressed to an adult who had recently been baptized and urges that person to live an authentic
Christian life, always moving forward, avoiding all lukewarmness. The author writes that through “the
new grace” received in baptism all cause for sorrow or tears has been removed. The newly baptized is
urged to “act, be on guard, run, has- ten. Act in such a way that you progress in spirituality (in
spiritualitate),” that is, in life according to the Spirit that was given in baptism. …” p. 2

(2) Philip Sheldrake, The Study of Spirtuality. [This article provides an excellent overview on the term
‘spirituality’ – ARJ ]

“In Christian terms, a working definition of 'spirituality' might be as follows. It describes the ways that
individuals and groups seek to enter into a conscious relationship with God, to worship, to formulate
their deepest values and to create appropriate lifestyles in dialogue with their beliefs about God, the
human person and creation. (p.2)
… Sandra Schneiders, who notes in one of her numerous studies on the topic that the term “spirituality”
has three interrelated references: first, to a fundamental dimension of the human being; second, to the
lived experience that actualizes that dimension; and third, to the academic discipline that studies the
experience. Here … she defines spirituality as “the experience of consciously striving to integrate one’s
life in terms not of isolation and self-absorption but of self-transcendence toward the ultimate value one
perceives.” (p.4)

(3) Ronald Rolheiser (1999), The Holy Longing – The Search for a Christian Spirtuality. p.7 “ … fire
that burns with us. What we do with that fire, how we channel is our spirituality.” [However, what he
offered is not a definition per se, but a description of praxis spirituality. – ARJ]
(4) Peter Russell (www.peterrussell.com/) (of non-Christian New-ageism) writes “the essence
of spirituality is the search to know our real self, to discover the true nature of
consciousness” – here again we don’t see any reference to the concept of ‘spirit’. [He further
writes: ‘I AM is the Name of God; Know Thyself to Know God … Be still (let the mind be
still) And Know (as a direct experience) That I (your innermost essence) Is God. [It shows
it is alien to the Scripture – exactly what the Serpent offered to Adam; the dominant religion
of the world ‘I am God’ whether one is conscious or not. An easy fall out when the name of
the God of the Scripture, YHWH, is not remembered and revered among Christendom. –
Here, when all is said, the definition of ‘God’ for them is nothing other than ‘(my own) self
glorified’. In contrast, ‘God’ of Trinitarians are actually undefined. It would be hard to find
the name YHWH in any Trinitarian article, and for that matter any Christian articles, other
than those dealing with the subject of the ‘names’ of God itself. - ARJ]

*Consciousness http://youtu.be/y7RL__ZgdEw;
mind and body; spirit and soul; /

sentient
9
apistia – *lack of faith; />>not trusting; /x: unbelief;

Danker p. 43 – ‘refusal to give credence to’ lack of faith, unbelief, of lack of

willingness [or ability] to respond positively to words or actions that invite belief
or commitment Mt 13:58; Mk 6:6; 9:24; 16:14; Rm 3:3 (here with focus on
commitment; 4:20; 11:20, 23; 1Ti 1:13; Heb 3:9; kardia ponēra apistias base
unbelieving heart vs. 12.
Mk 9:24 help my lack of faith in you ░░ \βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ; /x: unbelief. Gk.
apistia – also in Mk 16:14] [problem of verb vs. noun – believing, trusting, belief,
faith, creed, etc.]; 1 (faith): /help my lack of faith – Delitzsch; /Help what little faith I
have – ARJ; /> help me where I need faith – NWT; /x: strengthen my weak faith – WNT(ko.
감싸주다); /xx: help me to have more faith – AUV-NT; /x: help me where faith falls short –
NEB; /x: help my weakness of faith – AMP, Wuest; /xxx: (I do have faith, but not enough.)
Help me have more! - GNB 2 (/x: believing; belief): /x: help my unbelieving – ARJ; /help
thou my unbelief – KJV; /help my unbelief – many; /help me overcome my unbelief – NLT; /?:
shake-off my unbelief- ARJ (떨쳐버리다 버리게 하여주다 너그롭게보십시요); 3 (trust): /help
me – such little trust I had – ARJ; /(I do trust!) I haven’t had trust, help me! – ARJ; /help my
lack of trust - JNT; /x: help me trust more – PNT, ERV; /xx: help me with my doubts – MSG;
/x: ‘help me ~ so-that and-then I believe?’

“I believe; help my unbelief”(NIV). What a strange statement. Does it not contain

what appears to be a contradiction? – Wayne Jackson
http://verticalviewer.wordpress.com/ (05 Nov)
10
pisteuō eis (‘believe into’)

NET tn On the use of the πιστεύω εἰς (pisteuō + eis) construction in G-John: The verb πιστεύω
occurs 98 times in G-John (compared to 11 times in G-Mt 14 times in G-Mk [including the
longer ending], and 9 times in G-Lk).

[One of the unsolved mysteries is why the corresponding noun form πίστις (pistis) is
never used at all. Many have held the noun was in use in some pre-Gnostic sects and
this rendered it suspect for John. It might also be that for John, faith was an activity,
something that men do (cf. W. Turner, "Believing and Everlasting Life — A Johannine
Inquiry," ExpTim 64 [1952/53]: 50-52). ]

G-John uses πιστεύω in 4 major ways: (1) of believing facts, reports, etc., 12 times; (2) of
believing people (or the scriptures), 19 times; (3) of believing "in" "Mashiah (>Christ)"
(πιστεύω + εἰς + acc.), 36 times; (4) used absolutely without any person or object specified, 30
times (the one remaining passage Isa_2:24, where Yeshua (> Jesus) refused to "trust" himself
to certain individuals).

Of these, the most significant is the use of πιστεύω with εἰς + accusative. It is not unlike the
Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ (en Christō) formula. Some have argued that this points to a Hebrew (more
likely Aramaic) original behind the Fourth Gospel. But it probably indicates something else, as
C. H. Dodd observed: "πιστεύειν with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the
sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent
in the Hebrew or Aramaic phrase — an element integral to the primitive Christian conception
of faith in Christ — needed to be otherwise expressed" (The Interpretation of the Fourth
Gospel, 183).
11
Christomonism

(Monism: reduction of all processes, structures, concepts, etc., to a single governing principle; the
theoretical explanation of everything in terms of one principle.)

[Ref. David Clines, “Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology”, Theology, Vol. 83 (1980) p. 328
Christomonism. http://online.sagepub.com/ http://tjx.sagepub.com/ ]

[Tim Shuttle writes on MacArthur’s Christomonism – “a cultural accommodation of the Christian faith
based upon the exaggerated focus on the autonomous individuality of discrete human persons resulting
in a de facto denial of the Trinitarian [sic] nature of God as revealed in the Scripture and a reduction of
the gospel to a distorted Christological monism.” [A simple phrase ‘Jesus is God’, common among
Evangelicals, reduces God in triune relationality (not ‘Trinity God’) to a single person.]

In his paper delivered to the Presbyterian network in 1999, Douglas John Hall asserts
the danger of Christomonism. What this means is that we take this little phrase “Jesus
is God” and reduce our Triune God to a single person. But in practice it has other
implications – for our understanding of humanity and salvation, our practice of justice,
etc., etc. Discovered just this past weekend, this paper helped me see the connection of
our simplistic Christology to our inability to embrace the other, a legacy of the
universalizing and colonialism of modernity. Hall asks how we continue to affirm a rich
Christology without embracing the Christonomism (Dorothy Sollee called it
“Christofascism”) that has been so popular in Christendom. He writes, “I think that we
can do so only if we recover a foundational Theology–a doctrine of God–that is
informed by a Judaic sense of the dialectic of divine distance and proximity, otherness
and sameness, transcendence and immanence. Christomonism and the exclusivity that
attends it represents, I believe, a failure of trinitarian theology. For a triune
understanding of God, the western tradition especially was always tempted to substitute
an undialectical monotheism heavily informed by a christology emphasizing the
divinity principle and downplaying Jesus’ true humanity. The result, in the hands of the
simplifiers, is what H. Richard Niebuhr rightly named “a new unitarianism of the second
person of the trinity” – or, in the plain and oft-repeated slogan of popular
evangelicalism, the simple declaration: “Jesus is God.” If all we can say of Jesus and of
God is that Jesus is God – all the God of God there is – then we have effectively ruled
out all other attempts of the human spirit to glimpse the mystery of the ultimate; and
this is all the more conspicuously the case when our understanding of “Jesus,” in the
first place, is really a dogmatic reduction of his person, his “thou-ness,” to the “it-ness”
of christological propositions that, most of them, enshrine little more than our own
religious bid for authority.”
– from http://nextreformation.com/?p=2454#sthash.Xx3ZWSzX.dpuf

Nowhere Yeshua was called or described in the Bible as ‘the God’ (Elohim), nor the
phrase ‘Yeshua is God’.