I have thought about Paul's division of a human person into Body, Spirit, and Soul. For a long time I assumed spirit and soul is redundant but now I'm thinking differently. I know a tiny amount of Hebrew, but no Greek. (I'm working on it). My assumption is Paul has 'nephesh' in mind, which is not exactly divorced from bodily existence. sometimes translated as 'life-force' or 'breath of life', i wonder if this is correct; humans have Body, Spirit, and Soul. The soul is the breath of life. It's life itself, and I don't mean only a scientific, purely material understanding of life. Both body and spirit are given life by the soul. i'm not trying to bring in any form of platonism into play. Body and Spirit and "ensouled" they are imbued with the breath of life. This could have implications beyond its direct meaning. Please consider this first INDEPENDENTLY of death, judgement, eternity, and so forth, and THEN consider it with those things in mind. I would say, regardless of interpretations of what hell and judgement exactly entail, people who are unsaved have their Souls destroyed, and then exist only as Body and Spirit?
I'm asking what you guys think. I want as many perspectives as possible, from the most mystical to most conservative.
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/12/psychopathy-origins-totalitarianism/ - read me please
Chrisser, you're supposed to ask for any resources that support this idea .... forum guidance prohibits theology-fun. The key is to make the request as controversial as possible, while assuring readers 'just resources, no arguing'. Then, usually an FL guy will appear after 3 pages of excitement.
"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."
Denise: Chrisser, you're supposed to ask for any resources that support this idea .... forum guidance prohibits theology-fun. The key is to make the request as controversial as possible, while assuring readers 'just resources, no arguing'. Then, usually an FL guy will appear after 3 pages of excitement.
any resources support this idea or other ideas which are similar or different?
Chrisser:My assumption is Paul has 'nephesh' in mind, which is not exactly divorced from bodily existence.
to assume Paul in any one citation had a particular Hebrew idea when in Greek he has a range of 16 different words at his disposal is a HUGE assumption. Louw-Nida provides a semantic range to describe "psychological faculties" English notions of soul and spirit contain much nuance.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = Logos8 on Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (Win10), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone, [deprecated] Windows App, Proclaim, Faithlife.com, FaithlifeTV via Connect subscription.
Alright I'll have to do some more research.
Alright as it seems this is a very complicated topic. I'm gonna have to talk to my buddy who know's Greek. This makes me think of the maxim Body, Mind, and Spirit, rather than Soul.
There's been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, but I'd suggest dialing it down to the summaries of the arguments you can find in some systematic theologies. It would be under the general heading of anthropology or doctrine of man.
Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology discusses this on pp.191,ff (Part Two...; II.A.). Guy Duffield's Foundations of Pentecostal Theology discusses this on pp. 128,ff (Chapter Three...V. B.).
Berkhof (a Reformed theologian) comes down on the side of dichotomy; Duffield (obviously Pentecostal) seems to leave the question open ended. Your preferred systematic theologies probably also speak to the question.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
Rich DeRuiter: There's been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, but I'd suggest dialing it down to the summaries of the arguments you can find in some systematic theologies. It would be under the general heading of anthropology or doctrine of man. Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology discusses this on pp.191,ff (Part Two...; II.A.). Guy Duffield's Foundations of Pentecostal Theology discusses this on pp. 128,ff (Chapter Three...V. B.). Berkhof (a Reformed theologian) comes down on the side of dichotomy; Duffield (obviously Pentecostal) seems to leave the question open ended. Your preferred systematic theologies probably also speak to the question.
Chrisser:humans have Body, Spirit, and Soul.
IIRC this is the stance you will find in the theology of the Jehovah's Witness. And I find that generally if I can remember a group that takes a particular stance there are many others I do not know. A google search on spirit vs. soul vs. body will give you many starting points.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
oof once again i have gathered my foot!
Chrisser:That's not good! I definitely want to be cautious. I'm NOT going to read JW "literature" to prove it.
Okay, Chrisser, here you are getting too close for comfort to breaking the guidelines and insulting another Christian group. Please re-read the guidelines, consider them prayfully, and remind yourself of how broad the Logos community is and should be. BTW remember I am Catholic - very, very far from the JW.
For a more comprehensive view, I refer to Wikipedia's article Tripartitie (theology)
Many of the theologians below are cited by Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, Augustus H. Strong's Systematic Theology, Jan Jacob van Oosterzee's Christian Dogmatics, John Bickford Heard's Tripartite Nature of Man, and Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit.
A form of trichotomy is also held in Latter Day Saint theology. In the Doctrine and Covenants, a revelation of Joseph Smith Jr. states: "And the spirit and the body are the soul of man" (D&C 88:15).
Thanks VERY MUCH for the help. Apologies, I did not think JW counted as that! That was genuinely not an attempt to be a trouble. I know it tends me follow me on this forum, as I'm to speaking in small christian discussion where we more or less don't mince words.
You may have better search results if you search for "trichotomy" than "tripartite." The former term is used more frequently.
Trichotomy is a longstanding minority viewpoint within the church. A good history of theology should give you some idea of its acceptance & rejection, and most systematic theologies should have at least some discussion of it in its anthropology section.
Two sources I've read recently with interesting treatments:
Boice, J. M. Foundations of the Christian faith. Reformed, seems to accept trichotomy (This volume is in many base packages.)
Miley, J. Systematic theology. 19th century Methodist; rejects trichotomy but with a good historical discussion. Like many, he sees it more as a matter of opinion, not a question of orthodoxy.
Thanks Sean.
Chrisser:I'm asking what you guys think. I want as many perspectives as possible, from the most mystical to most conservative.
Hmmm. I'm not used to thinking on a spectrum that puts mysticism on one end and conservativism on the other.
At any rate, as with most theological and philosophical issues, I recommend consulting Aquinas for his perspective. The article linked to references passages accessible in Logos/Verbum.
Please use descriptive thread titles to attract helpful posts & not waste others' time. Thanks!
I mean conservative as in cautious. I should say that. Ill note acquinas.
As Denise tried to gently remind you, the FL forums are NOT the place for us to ask what others think, it is a place to ask for how to use the Logos tools or resources (Logos or not) for researching a topic. Like Sine Nomine, I am puzzled by the concept of mystical to conservative as some kind of a continuum. Our community ranges from people who consider mysticism as "satanic" to those who consider mysticism the purest form of religion. Our community ranges from people who argue whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism is the most conservative position to those who label the same groups "liberal". It is, however, a place to ask for input to personal research from a wide range of perspectives ... and hope you are lucky enough to have a Rastafarian respond.
I like mysticism. I'm not labeling anything Satanic. I meant cautious, not conservative. JW's and Mormons aren't Christians. I don't know if Rastafarians are or aren't.
Another take is something referred to as "Binity" (as opposed to Trinity). The general idea is that the HS is personal, in that it is the Father's spirit, but not a third "person" in the Godhead. The Father & Son "are", but the two share the HS together, and likewise it is shared with those who are being fashioned in their likeness. You may find a spread of views as to what the idea means, but that's true of pretty much anything that exists.
Generally speaking, "soul" as used in Greek-inspired religious thought (particularly that inspired by Plato) and nepphesh in Hebraic thought are not compatible ideas, but they were clearly taken to be equivalent by many "church fathers" (who were frequently imbued with a familiarity of Platonic thought). The word nepphesh essentially means "breather". The concept as the Bible describes it is that there is a body (physical) and the spirit that animates it (ephemeral) and empowers it with life. This spirit is the air/breath/wind that a body reSPIRes (specifically oxygen) that is the "battery" of living things. A body that has a resident, active spirit animating it is a soul (nepphesh), i.e. a breathing life. When the body and spirit are together, the soul lives. When they are separated, the soul dies. If a "breather" isn't breathing, it is functionless, thus dead. One way to look at it is that the nepphesh (soul) is the composite whole which is made up of the two combined components of body & spirit. To sum it up bluntly, some say we "have" a soul. The Bible says we "are" a soul.
This understanding fits hand-in-glove with what Yeishuua` described when He said that some can kill the body but not the soul (psuchay is the Greek equivalent of nepphesh), but that there is One who can kill both body and soul. Those who kill "YHWH's children" may take their life (kill the body), but He can and will reanimate them so that their souls do not permanently perish. You are not to fear the one (human or Satan) who can take your physical (first) life, because there is One who can restore it permanently. But you are to fear the One who can not only extinguish your first life, but can finally extinguish your second life (the one you receive for attending your final judgment) as well--thus leading to "the second death".
To factor in "spirit" in this discussion, there is nothing a human can do to "kill" a spirit, which is why Yeishuua` doesn't bother to mention it in the discussion of what can be killed. The spirit simply leaves the body and returns to the Father. Now, the term "spirit" is used in a couple of different ways: first, as the general animating essence; and second, as the SPECIFIC "imprint" of a individual nepphesh. Whatever the spirit of a person is when they die is the RAM memory (so to speak) that gets saved to a flash drive and stored by YHWH until the day of judgment. It is then "downloaded" into a reconstituted (resurrected) body for judgment, resulting in either eternal life or second death.
Now, some take the "one" who can kill both body and soul as being Satan (James Barr, for instance), but that leads to difficulties elsewhere. I would definitely research nepphesh. Animals are called nepphesh in Genesis 1, but most people who think the word means "soul" would probably not want to assign souls to animals, since they perceive that to be the unique "mechanism" allowing for the unique God & human "connection".
[ Specifically regarding Plato's usage of the word "soul" (Greek psuchay), he used psuchay as something "in" the body, whereas in Biblical thought, that animating and "personalized" essence of the individual would be better described as "the spirit in man" (per Job) and thus by pneuma in Greek and ruuahh in Hebrew. The Platonic perspective nevertheless gained supremacy in the early church, and so talk about "what happens to the soul when you die" took hold. The Biblical answer is, it's dead...because it lost the spirit and stopped breathing. But the spirit goes to the Father and awaits the time of resurrection and final judgment. ]
ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."
Chrisser: Thanks VERY MUCH for the help. Apologies, I did not think JW counted as that! That was genuinely not an attempt to be a trouble. I know it tends me follow me on this forum, as I'm to speaking in small christian discussion where we more or less don't mince words.
This is incomprehensible gibberish. I don't know how I wrote that.
I mean mysticism to non-mystical which I assume is "cautious." MJ Smith I'm not trying to be difficult.
I'll just not make non-technical threads anymore as I'm not supposed to.