• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I have been considering our indigineous people, the Maori. What existed before European colonisation were various tribes who at times co-existed in harmany with each other, at other times were at war. There was certainly wisdom born of the realities of tribalism and learning about communal living amidst the natural world. There would have been barbarism in that world too as everywhere else. Colonisation was a different form of brutality though. In Aoteoroa, New Zealand 16% of our population identifies as Maori so Maori culture is very much interwoven within modern New Zealand culture. My point is life changes in dramatic and unexpected ways. There are many things we have little or no control over and its hoped our spiritual and religious traditions enable us to meet and embrace those challenges. An essential aspect of embracing the world we inhabit is both finding our spiritual home and being comfortable with diversity represented by different tribes. So perhaps we are expressing similar ideals in different ways.

Not sure if our countries are at all comparable. Canada, and more generally North America had far more diversity of indigenous peoples. I never mean to imply it was all good, but with attempted genocide all aspects are lost, both the helpful, and the not so helpful. I've felt the mystical strength at abandoned indigenous holy sites. That knowledge, often beyond language, is largely unavailable, or gone.

Why the Indigenous in New Zealand have fared better than those in Canada

Indeed we have to find comfort with diversity. Some are more able than others. The idea that 'I'm right and you're wrong' whether it's direct or subtle is a hindrance to that.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Not sure if our countries are at all comparable. Canada, and more generally North America had far more diversity of indigenous peoples. I never mean to imply it was all good, but with attempted genocide all aspects are lost, both the helpful, and the not so helpful. I've felt the mystical strength at abandoned indigenous holy sites. That knowledge, often beyond language, is largely unavailable, or gone.

Why the Indigenous in New Zealand have fared better than those in Canada

Indeed we have to find comfort with diversity. Some are more able than others. The idea that 'I'm right and you're wrong' whether it's direct or subtle is a hindrance to that.

Its reasonable to compare the indigineous peoples of our two countries. Both were colonised by European powers (The British) and became independant soveign nations during the nineteenth century. I'm not so familiar with Canada's history but I am with Australia. My sense is New Zealand has put a great deal of work into race relations over the years but obviously with much to do. With such a large proportion of our population being Maori its not something we can simply ignore and forget about. The link provided made some reasonable comments in regards the New Zealand experience. Having a Treaty (of Waitangi) as a founding document for our nation has been very important. I worked a few months at a Medical Centre owned and run by Maori earlier in the year. Its was interesting to be part of an initiative to enable primary health care to be mor accessible to Maori and Pacific Island peoples. I have little time or energy for Christian fundamentalism these days. Its simply not taken seriously in New Zealand anymore.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Jesus is like a "Doctor Who." I can't claim that The Doctor is patterned after him, but there are strong resemblances between The Doctor and Mark's treatment of Jesus. Mark begins with Jesus getting baptized by his own disciple, John, and suddenly Jesus is declared by heaven to be The Son or is adopted or is confirmed as the Son. It is supposed to be ironic. How can the lesser baptize the greater? How could Jesus allow John to baptize him? How can heaven approve of this? To Christians this is a symbol for becoming greater in terms of peace and power than the Jewish nation. Its a challenge, and it claims that the student can become greater than the teacher. As we ask who Jesus is we also ask who we are, because we are supposed to emulate Jesus. Mark is saying yes you can be even greater if you try. Its a recurring theme in Christian texts, and for this reason Paul feels he must say "Don't boast against the original branches" when he is discussing why the Jews reject Jesus. Paul makes the point that Christians aren't the original stock and can be cut off, removed, gone; and the original plant will survive without us, making its own new branches. I mention this because its hard to simulate the original fervor of Christianity and to put ourselves there in that time where we are the underdogs, the unproven unknown, unaccomplished strangers. We are challenged to be better than the Jewish nation yet grafted to it, reliant, somewhat like seedless grapes which are possible through grafting one species of grape onto the stock of another. In this situation the Christian is faced with the question of "If I'm not Jewish then who am I?" Mark continually asks who Jesus is and through this is also telling the Christian to think about who they should be.

This phrase 'My Son' from chapter 1 turns into 'Son of Man' in chapter 8, alluding to the book Daniel. The Christian ought to be both of these, ought to become them; but what are they? What are these things? Now we are asking who is The Son, and who is the Son of Man? People in Mark continually ask the question "Who is he?" Jesus is our example, so we should be asking who is Jesus. Mark gets us asking this right from the start and all throughout. Beware of the chapter endings, because the chapters are not in the original work. It is originally a book with only one chapter. In chapter 6 people say "Isn't this just the son of Mary and Joseph from down the street?" The Christian should be seeing themselves in Jesus when they read this. They should ask "Am I not just some regular person, and how can I outdo the righteousness of a Pharisee? Can I be chosen by heaven?" Its supposed to be read humbly. Over and over Mark asks who Jesus is and gives hints. In chapter 8 (as we draw closer to the OP question) Jesus asks his disciples "Who do you say that I am?" Then at the beginning of chapter nine comes his transfiguration where he glows and stands with Moses and Elijah. He glows brightly, symbolizing several things. Its light which explores creation, which judges good from evil, which is wisdom, which drives away the dark. He becomes a source of light. The Christian is to be like that.

The most mysterious passage of all: Mark 8:31 says that Jesus teaches them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, be rejected by the elders, by the chief priests, by the scribes, be killed, be dead for three days and rise again. No one has ever been, in my lifetime, been able to explain why three days. I continually return to this and wonder why it must be three. So far I have some clues, some ideas; no solid answers. I relate it to the three days required in the law for sacrifices to be consumed or destroyed, but there is not a solid connection there. If nobody can explain why three days, then why should I believe that they can explain why he must be rejected? Similarly if I can't explain it, then I should be humble and not claim to know why the elders have rejected Jesus. Should I accuse them? Should I blame them? I don't understand for myself, and there are many other reasons I have not mentioned why we mustn't boast against the original roots. You can't explain why Jesus must be dead for three days, and neither can I. Feel free to make a guess.

In this context lets treat the question of the OP, and no doubt you have your own ideas if you've already waded through the above. What does it profit a man to gain the entire world but lose his own life in the process? Why should I do anything for the world's sake? The question reminds me of something -- Jesus temptation in the wilderness where he is tempted by this exactly. He can have all the kingdoms of the world, make any laws, help anyone. All he has to do is bow to someone, someone who is named 'Enemy'. Through Jesus conversation with Peter I infer that the enemy opposes Jesus death. The enemy in Peter argues "No Jesus you must not die," causing Jesus to rebuke Peter "Get behind me, Satan!" It also reminds me of the temptations you and I face. We want to preserve ourselves, but Jesus says "Deny yourself." We don't don't want to do that. Enemy within us doesn't want that.

As Mark asks who Jesus is, I the reader must also who I am since Jesus it whom I am to imitate. Am I Satan - someone opposing God's will? Am I trying to preserve my life against the will of God, and why is it God's will that I should die?

Thank you for your thorough and well considered response. Its all about identity. In Christ we live and in Adam we die (1 Corinthians 15:22).
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
I’ve considered this theory before and am not aware of any evidence to support it. However I like the intent of finding a meaningful narrative that embraces both the Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths and weaving them together.

Well, I am only speculating a possibility. I am sure @paarsurrey would claim there is evidence, from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's book, 'Jesus in India'. I have also seen other writings from other sources supporting this idea, but forget where I read it.

I am unsure what you would consider evidence about supposed happenings centuries ago.
The op said Presuming Jesus really spoke these words what do you think Jesus meant and why?

So, I presumed he said such things and considered how I would feel in those times at that place.
I would definitely have travelled to see how others' lived and studied their knowledge/wisdom(especially with no internet, that I knew(being Jesus) wouldn't be invented for 1900+ years or so!:)).
I am grateful for modern modes of transport that have allowed me to easily travel and experience other cultures for myself.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Check the revision (elaboration) I made to my post #32 after I'd first posted it.

Not sure what you revised, but you are spot on in your definitions....
"The Greek word translated 'soul' is ψυχή / psukhē / psyche. . . . .(Etymologically in English it's also associated with 'mind' in words like 'psychiatry' ─ though in old Greek the word for 'mind' was νοῦϛ / nous.)"

"Psychiatry" and "psychology" have to do with the mind. We live in our heads as the brain is command centre for the rest of our body. When the brain dies, the soul dies with it. (Ezekiel 18:4) Our consciousness is from brain activity and a dead brain is deactivated, shutting down all other bodily functions. This is true of both man and animals...both are called "souls" and both experience the same kind of death. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20) All end up in the same place. We have no advantage over the animals in death, except that we alone are offered a future resurrection.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Its reasonable to compare the indigineous peoples of our two countries. Both were colonised by European powers (The British) and became independant soveign nations during the nineteenth century. I'm not so familiar with Canada's history but I am with Australia. My sense is New Zealand has put a great deal of work into race relations over the years but obviously with much to do. With such a large proportion of our population being Maori its not something we can simply ignore and forget about. The link provided made some reasonable comments in regards the New Zealand experience. Having a Treaty (of Waitangi) as a founding document for our nation has been very important. I worked a few months at a Medical Centre owned and run by Maori earlier in the year. Its was interesting to be part of an initiative to enable primary health care to be mor accessible to Maori and Pacific Island peoples. I have little time or energy for Christian fundamentalism these days. Its simply not taken seriously in New Zealand anymore.

Almost all treaties here were just broken without consequence. They still are. The 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude isn't limited to fundamentalist Christianity. It's in all religions to varying degrees. Most certainly in some adherents. As they say about meetings to leave your ego at the door, same too with religion.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not sure what you revised, but you are spot on in your definitions....
"The Greek word translated 'soul' is ψυχή / psukhē / psyche. . . . .(Etymologically in English it's also associated with 'mind' in words like 'psychiatry' ─ though in old Greek the word for 'mind' was νοῦϛ / nous.)"

"Psychiatry" and "psychology" have to do with the mind. We live in our heads as the brain is command centre for the rest of our body. When the brain dies, the soul dies with it. (Ezekiel 18:4) Our consciousness is from brain activity and a dead brain is deactivated, shutting down all other bodily functions. This is true of both man and animals...both are called "souls" and both experience the same kind of death. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20) All end up in the same place. We have no advantage over the animals in death, except that we alone are offered a future resurrection.
Glad you like those verses from Ecclesiastes ─ if I had to choose a favorite bible passage, that'd be Ecclesiastes 3:18-22.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Glad you like those verses from Ecclesiastes ─ if I had to choose a favorite bible passage, that'd be Ecclesiastes 3:18-22.

King Solomon was given God's wisdom but not all of his knowledge. This made him a little frustrated at times, lamenting the obvious futility of this life. With the coming of Christ, so much more was revealed. I'm sure that when Solomon is resurrected he will be delighted with the way things turned out. As he was not included in the new covenant with Jesus and his anointed ones, for a role in the heavenly arrangement, I believe that his resurrection is yet future, when the kingdom rules this earth and he will see God's wisdom in everything he wrote. (Revelation 21:2-4)
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I think the context of the passage makes this clear. Jesus has just explained to the Apostles how he's going to be arrested, tried, whipped, crucified, and killed. Peter's immediate reaction is to start coming up with a plan to stop this from happening.

Jesus rebukes Peter for this - actually calling him "Satan" for what he's saying.

The verse you quoted is part of that rebuke. Jesus explains that the salvation of humanity depends on his death as described. In the quoted verse, Jesus is making the point that if he doesn't die, no matter what else a man does, his soul will be lost.

So if I had to give a one-sentence answer, I'd say that in that passage, Jesus is telling Peter that without Jesus's crucifixion, anything else humanity does will be futile.


According to the Expositors Bible commentary it is disbelief in Jesus here that is being emphasised and that to try and preserve ones physical life to prevent being martyred by recanting ones Faith is to lose ones soul or become spiritually dead.


35 This statement relates to a situation in which Christians faced the alternatives of confessing Christ or denying him. Jesus warns that by denying him, one's physical life may be saved; but one's eschatological life i.e., his eternal life, his salvation- will be lost.

Conversely, to lose one's physical life by remaining true to Christ--i.e., by confessing him under duress--is to be assured of eternal life and salvation. This seems to be the meaning of the verse in this context in Mark. Thus it would have sounded a warning to any in Mark's church who might be thinking of defecting under trial. "For me" stresses the absoluteness of Jesus' claim for allegiance, and "for the gospel" is probably a reference to the preaching of the gospel for which men are to give their lives.


35-37 These two verses emphasize the incomparable worth of the psyche ("eschatological life," "soul"). Not even "the whole world" compares in value to it (v.36). And once a man has forfeited his share in eternal life (in this context, by a denial of Jesus), there is no way he can get it back (v.37). Even the whole world, if he had it, could not buy back eternal life for him--another stern warning against recanting the Christian faith.Expositors Bible Commentary)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Almost all treaties here were just broken without consequence. They still are. The 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude isn't limited to fundamentalist Christianity. It's in all religions to varying degrees. Most certainly in some adherents. As they say about meetings to leave your ego at the door, same too with religion.
Since the 1990s New Zealand has had a judicial process to address grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi. Its an important mechanism for assisting race relations.

Ego is a universal phenomenon for humans which all religions address to varying degrees. Some religions do predispose their followers to fundamentalism more than others.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
King Solomon was given God's wisdom but not all of his knowledge. This made him a little frustrated at times, lamenting the obvious futility of this life. With the coming of Christ, so much more was revealed. I'm sure that when Solomon is resurrected he will be delighted with the way things turned out. As he was not included in the new covenant with Jesus and his anointed ones, for a role in the heavenly arrangement, I believe that his resurrection is yet future, when the kingdom rules this earth and he will see God's wisdom in everything he wrote. (Revelation 21:2-4)
Such a contrast of our worldviews! King Solomon was the head of a wee desert kingdom three millennia ago, which happened to be literate in a particular way that allowed stories about him to span the ages. His god was one of the Canaanite pantheon, who came had come into existence, or perhaps acquired a separate and distinct existence, about 500 years earlier. That god was useful as a cultural artifact, fulfilling a common role in Canaanite culture. If he thought at times that life was futile, well, maybe a thousand wives is too many; yet at other times, at least according to the tales, he seemed aware and purposeful.

And Jesus may or may not have been a real figure in history. If he was, none of his contemporaries noticed him, and the author of Mark, his only biographer, knew nothing about a real Jesus and devised a tale in which his hero moved through a series of scenes taken from the Tanakh which our author used as purported messianic prophecies. There's no coherent explanation what purpose could possibly be served by God sacrificing his son to himself; and as many have observed, the phrase 'died for our sins' is equally incoherent, since punishment for sin, either in the negative form of ceasing to exist, or in the positive form of eternity in the lake of fire (&c), has never been taken off the table.

So we're left enquiring into the idea that religion is an evolved trait of human brains, relating, perhaps, to tribal identity and coherence; and it goes hand in hand with our resort to stories, found in all cultures round the world, to explain what we don't understand.

Or so it looks to me.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
It is recorded in the Gospel of Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?


Presuming Jesus really spoke these words what do you think Jesus meant and why?

One thing is to show where the real treasure is.

Jesus also said whoever is his disciple must deny himself, take up his cross daily and come follow him. This would be more of the same.

You give up the temporary for a better and eternal treasure.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Remember the white horse of the apocalypse who conquers just to conquer, while Jesus is born as Christ. That's what this verse is referring to.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It is recorded in the Gospel of Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?


Presuming Jesus really spoke these words what do you think Jesus meant and why?

I understand that it is the soul that is the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is not good to kill the goose on account of greed for golden eggs.

...

...
 
Last edited:

74x12

Well-Known Member
It is recorded in the Gospel of Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?


Presuming Jesus really spoke these words what do you think Jesus meant and why?
It's Jesus way of showing people that there is nothing more valuable than their soul. If you deny Jesus to save your life then you will be lost. That's the truth so people should be willing to die for their faith. Because if you save yourself and lose your soul you've gained nothing but temporal things.

All this reminds me of Jesus' own temptation when satan offered him all the kingdoms of this world and their glory. Jesus may have been remembering this very temptation when he said this.
 
Top