Our Body is our Soul and our Soul is our Body.

[JLB]

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Fran C.

That IS interesting! Perhaps, that would be a good way to solidify what we are saying to one another. However, WHO decides the "correct" definitions of the terms within that "Christian Dictionary?"

This is going to be somewhat complicated, but I'll try it anyway:

I've learned that there are TWO different ways to show a definition for a word. There's the more complicated ...
1. UNION principle, which is showing EVERY way that a word can be used in common speech by every person in the world who speaks that language, ...

and there's the far less complicated ...

2. INTERSECTION principle, which shows what that word means in common to EVERY person in the world who speaks that language.

I'll try to use a diagram to make this more simple:

Here's a basic Venn diagram showing the Universal Set (U) and two intersecting sets, circles A and B. Their intersection is the area seen as C. The union is all three sections, A, B, and C. The intersection is C only.

Now, imagine a set (circles A, B, D, E, F, .....) for EVERY person who speaks that language. Assuming that the context of this word is the same for each individual (although it's NOT), then every person's circle should have some "C" intersection where they have a commonality of that word's usage within that context.

Context adds another "wrinkle" to the situation. See, in a living language, words typically in one context, may be BORROWED by individuals into a different context for a SIMILAR meaning within that context. One might even borrow a word from another language and "Anglicize" the word or use that word directly for a particular context. 

Take for instance, the word "file": In the typical UNION principle, the definitions are...
 

One can see from this set of definitions how complicated this can be!

Because certain words and usages of words come from other languages in other cultures and at other times in history, we also add TIME to this mix! 

Perhaps, one can lessen the complication: one might be able to group the definitions of certain individuals into a single definition for a particular denomination, and perhaps, each definition should have sections for each denomination(??? )

I've chosen the INTERSECTION principle and the BEST way to intersect is to go the origins of those words, their ETYMOLOGY!

For instance, in the etymologies of the first two definitions, the word that stands out as a synonym is "string." Associated words would be "line," "list," and "queue." If you'll go through the first two definitions, replace the word "file" with "string" (or its past tense):

a string of correspondence
do you want to save this string [of data]?
the contract, when signed, is strung [with other contracts]?
he still had the moment strung away [with other moments] in his memory
criminal charges were strung against the firm
the company had strung [a case] for bankruptcy [with the courts]
on [a] string
on a string or a stringing system

For the second definition, let's substitute the word "line" instead:

Cree warriors riding in [a] line down the slopes
a line of English soldiers had ridden out from Perth
the mourners lined into the church

Finally, what the Greek and Hebrew words may lack in etymology, they gain in FAMILIES of words.  The commonalities between words within a family of Hebrew words, for instance, can explain the basic meaning of the root word for that family!

No, my methodology may be different, but I'm putting together all of the CONTEXTS for those words in all of the verses of both the Tanakh (the O.T.) and the B'rit Chadashah (the N.T.), and coming up with the common meaning for those words in both Hebrew and Greek.

 

C = The Christian “fish” symbol used in the first century. 

 

 

 

JLB 

[Fran C]

16 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Fran C.

That IS interesting! Perhaps, that would be a good way to solidify what we are saying to one another. However, WHO decides the "correct" definitions of the terms within that "Christian Dictionary?"

This is going to be somewhat complicated, but I'll try it anyway:

I've learned that there are TWO different ways to show a definition for a word. There's the more complicated ...
1. UNION principle, which is showing EVERY way that a word can be used in common speech by every person in the world who speaks that language, ...

and there's the far less complicated ...

2. INTERSECTION principle, which shows what that word means in common to EVERY person in the world who speaks that language.

I'll try to use a diagram to make this more simple:

Here's a basic Venn diagram showing the Universal Set (U) and two intersecting sets, circles A and B. Their intersection is the area seen as C. The union is all three sections, A, B, and C. The intersection is C only.

Now, imagine a set (circles A, B, D, E, F, .....) for EVERY person who speaks that language. Assuming that the context of this word is the same for each individual (although it's NOT), then every person's circle should have some "C" intersection where they have a commonality of that word's usage within that context.

Context adds another "wrinkle" to the situation. See, in a living language, words typically in one context, may be BORROWED by individuals into a different context for a SIMILAR meaning within that context. One might even borrow a word from another language and "Anglicize" the word or use that word directly for a particular context. 

Take for instance, the word "file": In the typical UNION principle, the definitions are...
 

One can see from this set of definitions how complicated this can be!

Because certain words and usages of words come from other languages in other cultures and at other times in history, we also add TIME to this mix! 

Perhaps, one can lessen the complication: one might be able to group the definitions of certain individuals into a single definition for a particular denomination, and perhaps, each definition should have sections for each denomination(??? )

I've chosen the INTERSECTION principle and the BEST way to intersect is to go the origins of those words, their ETYMOLOGY!

For instance, in the etymologies of the first two definitions, the word that stands out as a synonym is "string." Associated words would be "line," "list," and "queue." If you'll go through the first two definitions, replace the word "file" with "string" (or its past tense):

a string of correspondence
do you want to save this string [of data]?
the contract, when signed, is strung [with other contracts]?
he still had the moment strung away [with other moments] in his memory
criminal charges were strung against the firm
the company had strung [a case] for bankruptcy [with the courts]
on [a] string
on a string or a stringing system

For the second definition, let's substitute the word "line" instead:

Cree warriors riding in [a] line down the slopes
a line of English soldiers had ridden out from Perth
the mourners lined into the church

Finally, what the Greek and Hebrew words may lack in etymology, they gain in FAMILIES of words.  The commonalities between words within a family of Hebrew words, for instance, can explain the basic meaning of the root word for that family!

No, my methodology may be different, but I'm putting together all of the CONTEXTS for those words in all of the verses of both the Tanakh (the O.T.) and the B'rit Chadashah (the N.T.), and coming up with the common meaning for those words in both Hebrew and Greek.

I think how you explain  the differences in meaning of words is not so complicated and is understood by anyone that speaks a language well.

My belief is that we  COULD agree on what each "Christian or theological" word could mean.  How did biblical scholars come to know except by studying the bible?  This is the only way.  It would be great to have the same language...immediate understanding.  Trinity, for instance, has a very definite meaning, and yet there are those that will give it a totally different explanation - instead of just stating that they don't believe in it.  They want to believe that it means what THEY think it means.

Alas, YOU are doing exactly the same!

There are set definitions for Body, Soul, Spirit, and yet you prefer to study the old and new testaments and come up with  your own understanding!

In the O.T. the heart was credited with having feelings.

Do YOU think the heart has feelings?  Or is it just a way to express an emotion?  My heart bleeds for you.  My heartfelt sympathies. etc.

We feel with our mind...not with our heart.  And our mind is part of the soul.

 

[Butch5]

On 8/23/2013 at 12:14 PM, Sculelos said:

Biblical support. 

 

Genesis 2:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

2 Corinthians 5:

1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I think it's a bit more. According to Gen 2:7 the soul is the combination of the body and the breath or spirit of God. The two together form the soul.

[Retrobyter]

5 hours ago, JLB said:

The Bible defines many of the important words in the Bible by context.

Probably one of the most misused and most misunderstood words in the Bible is the word faith. 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Two more very important scriptures about faith -

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

• But without faith it is impossible to please Him

again

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23

• for whatever is not from faith is sin.

The lexicons and Hebrew/Greek dictionary’s are a good place to start, however when the Bible defines for us the meaning of a word we need to keep that meaning as a foundation, and the man made meaning from the lexicons as a secondary meaning if it doesn’t violate the definition the scripture gives. 

Then, just as important, the scripture also defines the principle by which faith operates to produce the intended divine result, as well.

Once people begin to understand this word, and the “law” or principle by which faith functions or operates to produce the intended divine result, it will bring some clarity and unity to some of the major doctrinal divisions that reside within the body of Christ.

 

JLB 

Shalom, JLB.

(I just took out some of your vertical white space in quoting you.)

Yes, but even words read in context can be misread if they can be taken in two different lights - two different perspectives. For instance, one person might ask,

"Have you ever seen a housefly?"

And a child might say,

"No!" 

thinking the question was "Have you ever seen a house fly?" 

(Yes, I was watching Disney's "Dumbo," lately.)

Regarding, ...

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,

many focus on the "THINGS HOPED FOR" and "THINGS NOT SEEN." However those are both objective phrases of the prepositions "of," and thus they both are phrases as part of adjectivally modifying prepositional phrases. The REAL predicate nominatives are "SUBSTANCE" and "EVIDENCE!"

What is the "substance," or "hupostasis" in Greek, is the "underpinnings" or "assurance" of what we can know about God's works in the past. The very ACCOUNTS (not STORIES, which implies fabrications) that are listed within Hebrews 11, commonly called "the Faith Chapter" of the Bible, ARE the "SUBSTANCE" that we can trust God CAN do!

What is the "evidence," or "elegchos" in Greek, is the "proof" of what God has done for others of LIKE FAITH or SIMILAR TRUST as we have or can have! The "evidence" IS the VERY WORD OF GOD ITSELF, which records for us these accounts! It shows us what God has been WILLING to do for others in the past!

(In Greek grammar, both predicate nominatives, "hupostasis" and "elegchos," are in the nominative case. The Greek word, "elpizomenoon," and the Greek phrase, "ou blepomenoon," are in the genitive case, neuter gender, and plural number.)

Regarding,

Hebrews 11:5-6 (KJV)

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,

"Enoch" (Chanokh) was renowned by the words "he pleased God" and the author of Hebrews added that it's impossible to please God without faith, and also adds that "he who comes to God must, first, believe that He exists, and, second, that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks God out." One should notice, however, that faith is nothing alone without the Object of our faith, GOD HIMSELF! One absolutely MUST trust in GOD, not just have some blind "faith," falsely so-called.

Regarding,

Romans 14:23 (KJV) 

23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin,

That last phrase, "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin," should NOT be taken out of its context, even within the VERY SAME VERSE!

Paul is talking to the Roman believers about eating meats offered once to idols: If a person cannot be confident in his "God-given right to eat that meat without God's disfavor," then he or she has NO BUSINESS eating that meat! "Why not?" one may ask. The answer is because that person, in truly still believing that God disapproves of eating such meat and going AGAINST that belief and eating it anyway, has sinned against what he or she believed God disapproved! That person has begun to allow himself or herself to start the downhill spiral into the habit of going against God's will, real or imaginary!

THAT'S the intent of the phrase, and the phrase should NOT be universalized beyond its context.

My point is this: Greek and Hebrew grammar as well as vocabulary helps in defining the words we use, and this is PARTICULARLY TRUE within the Greek or Hebrew contexts in which those words are found. How they translate into English is a bit tricky, but English alone is not always sufficient to understand a word's meaning.

[JLB]

23 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JLB.

(I just took out some of your vertical white space in quoting you.)

Yes, but even words read in context can be misread if they can be taken in two different lights - two different perspectives. For instance, one person might ask,

"Have you ever seen a housefly?"

And a child might say,

"No!" 

thinking the question was "Have you ever seen a house fly?" 

(Yes, I was watching Disney's "Dumbo," lately.)

Regarding, ...

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,

many focus on the "THINGS HOPED FOR" and "THINGS NOT SEEN." However those are both objective phrases of the prepositions "of," and thus they both are phrases as part of adjectivally modifying prepositional phrases. The REAL predicate nominatives are "SUBSTANCE" and "EVIDENCE!"

What is the "substance," or "hupostasis" in Greek, is the "underpinnings" or "assurance" of what we can know about God's works in the past. The very ACCOUNTS (not STORIES, which implies fabrications) that are listed within Hebrews 11, commonly called "the Faith Chapter" of the Bible, ARE the "SUBSTANCE" that we can trust God CAN do!

What is the "evidence," or "elegchos" in Greek, is the "proof" of what God has done for others of LIKE FAITH or SIMILAR TRUST as we have or can have! The "evidence" IS the VERY WORD OF GOD ITSELF, which records for us these accounts! It shows us what God has been WILLING to do for others in the past!

(In Greek grammar, both predicate nominatives, "hupostasis" and "elegchos," are in the nominative case. The Greek word, "elpizomenoon," and the Greek phrase, "ou blepomenoon," are in the genitive case, neuter gender, and plural number.)

Regarding,

Hebrews 11:5-6 (KJV)

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,

"Enoch" (Chanokh) was renowned by the words "he pleased God" and the author of Hebrews added that it's impossible to please God without faith, and also adds that "he who comes to God must, first, believe that He exists, and, second, that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks God out." One should notice, however, that faith is nothing alone without the Object of our faith, GOD HIMSELF! One absolutely MUST trust in GOD, not just have some blind "faith," falsely so-called.

Regarding,

Romans 14:23 (KJV) 

23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin,

That last phrase, "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin," should NOT be taken out of its context, even within the VERY SAME VERSE!

Paul is talking to the Roman believers about eating meats offered once to idols: If a person cannot be confident in his "God-given right to eat that meat without God's disfavor," then he or she has NO BUSINESS eating that meat! "Why not?" one may ask. The answer is because that person, in truly still believing that God disapproves of eating such meat and going AGAINST that belief and eating it anyway, has sinned against what he or she believed God disapproved! That person has begun to allow himself or herself to start the downhill spiral into the habit of going against God's will, real or imaginary!

THAT'S the intent of the phrase, and the phrase should NOT be universalized beyond its context.

My point is this: Greek and Hebrew grammar as well as vocabulary helps in defining the words we use, and this is PARTICULARLY TRUE within the Greek or Hebrew contexts in which those words are found. How they translate into English is a bit tricky, but English alone is not always sufficient to understand a word's meaning.

 

Faith must have the “work” of obedience in order to activate it, otherwise “faith alone” all by itself is dead, and incomplete. 

 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? James 2:21-22

 

• Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

 

 

JLB

[Retrobyter]

On 11/18/2019 at 6:16 PM, JLB said:

 

Faith must have the “work” of obedience in order to activate it, otherwise “faith alone” all by itself is dead, and incomplete. 

 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? James 2:21-22

 

• Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

 

 

JLB

Shalom, JLB.

Well, natch ("naturally")! One must SIT in the chair to show that one has FAITH in the chair to support him or her.

[JLB]

On 11/19/2019 at 6:44 PM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JLB.

Well, natch ("naturally")! One must SIT in the chair to show that one has FAITH in the chair to support him or her.

 

Peace to you. 

 

I’m discussing scripture and the principle of faith. 

 

What is your point?

 

 JLB 

 

 

 

[Retrobyter]

On 11/21/2019 at 7:16 AM, JLB said:

 

Peace to you. 

 

I’m discussing scripture and the principle of faith. 

 

What is your point?

 

 JLB 

 

 

 

Shalom, JLB.

My point is simple: The ACT DEMONSTRATES the REALITY! It doesn't take the ACT to BE REALITY! Faith is NOT about the person "doing" anything! Faith is about the One in whom that person places his or her faith!

(Sorry for the delay; I've been sick and not feeling up to any posting.)

Edited November 24, 2019 by Retrobyter

[A Christian 1985]

FALSE! Body, Soul, and Spirit!

[JohnD]

On 8/23/2013 at 11:14 AM, Sculelos said:

Biblical support. 

 

Genesis 2:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

2 Corinthians 5:

1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Our soul is made up of aspects of both body and spirit

and is the buffer between the two.