What is a "soul?"

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

lol. Big hug, bro. If there's a one-to-one correlation where then is the disembodied soul? Where then is the disembodied spirit?  Again, this was covered at quite some lengthy earlier when I asked these very same questions and no one was able to provide a single example of either in scripture. If a spirit can be seen then it has form and if it has form then it has mass, or...... a body. 

 

I admit to being somewhat surprised here.  I can almost always discern the thinking behind a point that someone makes, even if it is poorly made and I disagree with it (this clause is not a comment about your post); but, in this case, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion!

Light can be seen but it has no mass...

The fact that all dead bodies will be resurrected, does not appear to have any bearing on whether or not the spirit/soul leaves the body, at physical death.  Please would you go through your reasoning here, step-by-step, so that I can see where you are coming from, thanks.

After physical death, the physically disembodied soul/spirit is either with the Lord, or in the compartment of Hades for the wicked, awaiting judgment.  This does not necessarily mean that the spirit/soul has no body (it probably has some kind of spirit-body); but it is physically disembodied.

Quote

There are no disembodied spirits or souls in the scriptures. It is a view without actual precedent. Since we should probably stay away from views for which scripture does not provide and such example we might want to jettison that interpretation of body/soul/spirit.

At physical death, the spirit returns to God who gave it.  Jesus gave up the spirit, when he died on the cross.  

Edited December 22, 2020 by David1701

[WilliamL]

Some of my blogs address this subject. There is more to it than has been so far addressed. In brief, there are four manifested levels of being: breath/neshamah, spirit/ruach, soul/nephesh, and flesh/basar.

These are manifested levels of consciousness, in order of holiness. Above them are two others which are not openly manifested, Life/Chayyim, and Unity/Yechidah; and above them is what I will call (to avoid possibly causing controversy) Divinity.

Here are a couple of blog posts on the subject, for those who might be interested. Really don't want to get into any long discussions/arguments about these things, so probably won't post here again.

13. The Three Heavens

A description of the three heavens/worlds above our physical world, and how they correspond to soul, spirit, and breath. Also, how all four worlds are symbolically portrayed by the four different areas of the Holy Temple.    https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1027-the-three-heavens/

23. The Levels and Origins of Loves, and Their Ultimate Fulfillment

Explains the different words for “love” in the Greek language, and God’s uses for these loves in bringing His people into fruitfulness and unity.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1297-the-levels-and-origins-of-loves-and-their-ultimate-fulfillment/

[Charlie744]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

I don't read the phrase "wherein there is a living soul" in Genesis 1. What verse is that? Not only do I think proof-texting, or basing our views on a single verse good practice, my Bible shows Genesis 1:30 stating the following, 

Genesis 1:30 KJV
"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Genesis 1:30 NAS
"...and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so."

Genesis 1:30 ESV
"And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." 

I'm not seeing, "wherein there is a living soul". From whence do those words come? English versions of Tanakh? Darby's translation? 

 

 

 

Please ignore..... I will return to the NAS.... This came from one of the translations I acquired by a James Scott Trimm.  

[Charlie744]

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

I don't read the phrase "wherein there is a living soul" in Genesis 1. What verse is that? Not only do I think proof-texting, or basing our views on a single verse good practice, my Bible shows Genesis 1:30 stating the following, 

Genesis 1:30 KJV
"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Genesis 1:30 NAS
"...and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so."

Genesis 1:30 ESV
"And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." 

I'm not seeing, "wherein there is a living soul". From whence do those words come? English versions of Tanakh? Darby's translation? 

 

 

 

Thanks for bringing this forward... I will begin my work using NAS and then hope to receive your thoughts... Charlie 

[Frits]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

Perhaps that is true. I am open to correction. Perhaps the problem is a lack of clarity and you should concern you commentary with the prospect there's a log in your eye and not a speck in mine. You an I are always better off and more effective communicators when we look first to whether or not we have articulated ourselves well. Neither of us should have much expectation others will understand us if we have not done so. 

You, whether acknowledged or not, have posted some inconsistencies. I've pointed them out for our mutual benefit and the benefit of others and I have done so with the assumption  you are able to clarify these matters. So even though it may read as criticism that would be a Luke 6:45 problem and not something on my end of this conversation. 

Maybe I am not understanding. But that's not up to you to tell me. You're not the arbiter of anyone's understanding (or lack thereof) and you'll run into less conflict with others if the impulse to tell others what they do or don't understand is resisted and you instead make an effort to better clarify your own position...

....especially when real, objectively verifiable inconsistencies have been noted. 

So you think I don't understand. Great. Explain it to me and do so better than you've already done. 

Maybe. I'm an intelligent man with an IQ a couple of standard deviations above the norm (according to the tests that measure that sort of thing), I have several advance degrees from both state and private universities and that supposedly places me in the top 5% of the population, I am reported by some to be quite intellectual and articulate (if insensitive), and I have been a Spirit-filled believer in Christ who has read his Bible straight through from beginning to end many, many time both as written and chronologically, and I have spent the last 35 years of that Spirit-filled life reading some of Christendom's most noted theologians from a diverse set of perspectives Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox.

But maybe you've got something new that will prove difficult for me to understand. 

However, I think it best if you make the case for what you believe without mentioning me at all . 

The problem is this: contained in the posts of your I have read there are some inconsistencies. There is also a lot of repetition of ideas already worked through in this op; ideas that don't warrant another discussion and you will benefit all of us if you do your part and examine what preceded your arrival in the conversation. I'm not repeating already-posted content. I'm not repeating already-posted lengthy conversations just because you haven't read them already. I'm not asking anything invalid or irrelevant of you. I'll read through your posts but contradictions are contradictions. If you've stated on thing in one post and another things in another post that's not a problem of my reading or my difficulty in understanding. That's a problem pertaining to either your consistency of thought or inconsistency in posting. In either case it is appropriate for me to point out the real or perceived inconsistency and ask for clarification.

Which is exactly what I have done. 

Is that to difficult to understand?  

 

Your posts contain comments that are dualistic. You expressly posted doubts about my critique of the tripartite view. You also acknowledge the unity of body, soul, and spirit. These are self-contradictory. It's not a lack of understanding on my part; it is a factual inconsistency on yours. I trust you can sort that out and I am rooting for you.  

 

So don't be ragging on me. It's bad form. Just clarify the posts so the very real inconsistency is reconciled. 

In your answer to me you are talking about ".. real, objectively verifiable inconsistencies have been noted", but you don't mention them at all.

Then you have found
 that I  "..stated on thing in one post and another things in another post", but you don't state where I would have done that.

My explanation may not fit a paradigm you have in mind, but you have read my posts and write "I'll read through your posts but contradictions are contradictions".
Now, don't embroider your private theory around it, but now take a piece from my text and place it in the light of the Bible, and show through a Bible text that anything in my explanation is contradictory or false.  For someone as intelligent and developed as you, a simple copy/paste task from my text shouldn't be a problem, right?
In addition, you accused me being "snide and petty", but I asked a simple question whether you are a supporter of JW.  You don't have to be ashamed of that, do you?

(Don't forget: copy/paste + Bible text)

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness' (2Ti.3:16)

God bless you brother.
 

[Frits]

21 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I don't mean to be rude, but is English your native language? I ask not because I think you in any way incompetent; I ask because immediately after that quote I listed some of the inconsistencies! How can it be said I didn't mention any when I just mentioned some? May there's a language deficit. 

No my friend, you're not rude.  No one speaks English here, I never use it either.  I had prayed to the Lord Jesus and so I came to Worthy.  - I can go a long way with Google translate. -
I will answer the rest of your post later, it is now evening here and I am a bit tired.

God bless.?

[David1701]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

When we see a person or an object what we are seeing is the light reflected off the object, the object that has mass sufficient for the light to be reflected. When you look at me what you are seeing is the object the light cannot penetrate. Same thing is happening when you look at your laptop screen, or the cars in this morning's traffic. I did not say light has mass. 

Yes, I know all this; however, what if the object is itself light (or at least produces light)?  Then no reflection is required; and, what if a person's spirit is made up of energy, without matter?

Quote

Since I have not said and do not believe the spirit leaves the body you'll have to ask someone who holds such a belief to explain that view.

I know that you don't believe that the spirit leaves the body.

I posted this,

"The fact that all dead bodies will be resurrected, does not appear to have any bearing on whether or not the spirit/soul leaves the body, at physical death.  Please would you go through your reasoning here, step-by-step, so that I can see where you are coming from, thanks.",

because you said,

"... a great deal of time was spent disproving the idea of bodiless souls or disembodied spirits yet you've state the soul/spirit can be separated from it. That's not what scripture teaches in 1 Cor. 15 when it states the "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body...".

What I don't understand is how you get to your belief that the spirit does not leave the body, from the verse you quoted.  I don't see any connection between the two.

You obviously do see a connection; so, I'm simply asking you to spell out the thinking process that goes from that verse, to your belief that the spirit never leaves the body. 

Quote

Hades is a pagan concept. The NT writers report Jesus using the term but Jesus was not teaching Greek/Roman mythology. He used the language of the surrounding cultures but what he taught was substantively different in numerous ways. The dead do know something. The dead are not living a miserable life under the rule of the lesser gods Hades, Hel (Pluto, Anubis, etc.), and neither do you get to live at the foot of Mt. Olympus if you've performed some noble feat. I believe I explained this earlier and have certainly done so in many other ops. 

There is certainly a pagan concept of Hades; but, the Lord made it clear that there is a true version of Hades, which is very different from the pagan concept.

Quote

There is no hades. There is no Hades. These are pagan concepts. Jesus did NOT teach paganisms. 

The Lord used the same word, because there is an abode for the dead; but the Bible tells us the truth about it, which is far different from pagan versions.

Quote

What Jesus said is, "You will be with me in paradise." What Paul taught is to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. No waiting period. This too is a pagan concept (even if some sects have carried it over interpretively). Jesus did not teach paganisms. 

How can you be at home with the Lord immediately (and I agree with this), without your spirit leaving your dead physical body?

2 Cor. 5:6-8 (KJV)

6 Therefore 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:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
 

Quote

 

It might help to consider what time is like for the externally existing Creator because The Uncaused Causal God does not experience cause-and-effect as we do inside creation. Time is nothing more than a means of marking or measuring cause and effect and God sits outside the entire construct. God's not waiting to move us from one place to another. God lives eternally in the Now, knowing what we call past, present, and future instantly. He is not bound by the limits of time (or space, or singularity). He created time. 

Think Einstein and Planck, not Newton. 

 

I've realised that God is not limited by time or space, for a long time now.

Quote

Yes, anyone can quote scripture. I wholeheartedly affirm Ecclesiastes 12:7 but I render that verse through Jesus, not the other way around. Jewish version of death was wrong. The truth was veiled in the OT. The same guy who wrote Ecc. 12:7 also said the dead know nothing. He was wrong!

He was not wrong!  He was writing under the inspiration of the Spirit of God!

Ecclesiastes is about what happens "under the sun"; without realising that context, such misunderstandings are bound to happen.  When he wrote that the dead know nothing, he was talking about the physical body, in the grave, not the human spirit, which is still alive, after physical death.

Quote

The prevailing view was that death was it; there was no life after death and there was no resurrection. This is what separated the Pharisees from the Sadducees!!! They were the minority view. They were the upstarts (their sect was much younger than the former). Jesus made it quite clear the dead do know something (judgement for all, grace for some) and there definitely is a life after death and the body and soul can be destroyed. Jesus did not teach OT Judaism and he did not teach paganisms. He taught the true truth. 

The OT teaches that there is life after death, unbelieving Sadducees notwithstanding; in fact, the verse I quoted from Ecclesiastes teaches life after physical death.

Eccl. 12:5-7 (KJV)

5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 

This very clearly teaches that the human spirit leaves the physical body, at death.

Body and soul can indeed be destroyed; but that destruction is not ceasing to exist, it is separation from God, torment, unbearable heat, darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth and the "worm" that does not die.  The smoke of that everlasting torment rises perpetually and the contempt is forever.

Quote

You have heard it said........ but I say............ and then he proceeded to teach what is correct. 

The New Covenant has many changes from the Old.  For example, an eye for an eye WAS correct, as a just punishment, under law (and it is still just); but, the Lord was showing us that we should not demand justice (if we do that, then we might just get it; and we would not want that...) but be merciful and forgiving, as God is towards those who believe in Jesus.

Quote

 

I completely and whole heartedly accept, embrace, and affirm Mt. 27:50. But I do not proof-text the verse and make it say something different than all that Jesus and the rest of scripture taught. 

At physical death the spirit returns to God in a body. 

 

The human spirit may well return to God in a body (some kind of spirit-body); but not the physical body, which is still in the grave.  I have said this all along.

Quote

 

There are no disembodied spirits in the scriptures and Ecc. 12:7 and Mt. 27:50 do not change that fact. Your interpretation based on things you may add to the text might change the facts as stated in scripture but that's not scripture. Neither verse says anything about the rest of the human. Nada. Zilch. Silence. The fact is Jesus was resurrected in a body, and that body was flesh and bone. Paul states flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Yet Jesus had a body of flesh and bone. Scripture does not explain the difference but he had a body in resurrected form and it was with that body that he ascended into heaven. The body could apparently change appearance and walk through walls and walk and talk and walk around with gaping wounds in it. 

But it was a body. 

There are no disembodied spirits or souls in the Bible. 

 

What does the resurrection have to do with this?  You keep bringing this up, but it's an irrelevance to the subject at hand.

Jesus gave up his spirit, three days before he was resurrected.  His physical body was in the tomb for three days and nights, THEN he was resurrected.  His spirit was clearly not in his physical body, between the time when he gave up the spirit and when his physical body was resurrected.

Quote

Try less figuring out and more accepting. If you do not find any disembodied spirits then accept that fact as the truth of scripture. Then change your thinking, doctrine(s), and practice accordingly. Not the other way around. Every spirit that is seen has sufficient mass to reflect light. It has a body. 

You should take your own advice sometimes.

I have never claimed that spirits do not have bodies.  I have stated, a few times now, that I think that they may well have spirit-bodies of some kind.

The discussion is about the spirit leaving the physical body, not about spirit-bodies.

Edited December 23, 2020 by David1701

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, rhomphaeam said:

Shalom, brother

Given that your doctrine is based entirely on the linguistic direction, especially in the Hebrew, Can I enclose a few images for all of us to make a point and to ask a question?

This above image outlines the difficulty in the Hebrew of the term found in Genesis 2:7 which in most English translations is translated soul.

This above image shows the lemma and the scroll. 

This above image show a scribal principle adopted by the Hebrew scholars called kethiv. Can you see any problem with either the lemma, or the scroll (codex) or the margin from this one word נֶפֶשׁ [nephesh]?

Shalom, rhomphaeam.

When it comes to understanding the Scriptures, I operate by the SIBKIS principle as presented by Charlie "Tremendous" Jones, a.k.a. "Mr. Tremendous" (1927-2008). I was fortunate ("blessed") to have attended one of His motivational speeches and have a signed copy of one of his books. SIBKIS stands for:

See
It
Big
Keep
It
Simple

Using the Venn diagram principle of organization, today's definitions of Hebrew and Greek words as presented by various lexicons, an all-inclusive definition for some words would be a "lumpy mess" as several particular definitions are merged into a complex definition for a particular Hebrew or Greek word. This uses the UNION of these particular definitions to arrive at a complex, all-inclusive definition for that word.

I like to use the INTERSECTION of all the several, particular definitions for a particular word. I don't take all of the definitions, but rather look for what all the definitions HAVE IN COMMON! I come up with the most simple of definitions that one can derive from all the various applications of that word. Usually, that takes the word back to its etymology. For instance, the Hebrew word "dam" means "blood." Period. The Hebrew word for "red" is "adom." The word for "red man" is "Adam." The word for "red ground" or "red dirt" is "adamah." All of these words have "dalet" (d) and "mem" (m) in common. All the words that include the concept of "red" also include the beginning "alef" ('). All of these words constitute a Hebrew WORD FAMILY, all stemming from the same root word. To me, it's obvious, for instance, that all the words mentioned above have the common theme of "blood-colored."

What many people call the "Star of David" is actually known in the Hebrew language as "Magen David" which means "Shield of David." We in our Christian-based country use the words "Red Cross" for an emergency response team. In Jewish-based Israel, it is known as the "Magen David Adom," the "Red Shield of David," instead of the "Red Cross."

To answer your questions, the biggest problem I see with the lemma, the codex, or the margin is that people don't use their heads when they're reading God's Word. They'll read it, looking for rules and structure in the language, the orthography, but then FORGET to read for understanding! It's one thing to look at a text for its orthography; it's quite another to look at the same text for its semantics!

Look at the example of Deuteronomy 19:6:

Deuteronomy 19:6 (KJV)

6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 

In this particular passage of Scripture, Mosheh ("Moses") is talking about the "avenger of the breather's blood" pursuing after a person who ACCIDENTALLY kills another person to one of the six Cities of Refuge, where the accidental killer might find refuge from vigilante justice. Then, in the Year of Yoviyl (Jubilee), the killer would be able to go home to his family, all sins abolished. The man or woman guilty of hating the person killed and wanting the victim's death would not be allowed to stay in the City of Refuge to which he fled as judged by the city's judges.

The text was meant to show both that the victim was vulnerable as well as killed by the shedding of blood. The example used in the text was of an axe head flying off the handle and killing a co-worker. My perception is that BOTH words were used to describe the victim, that one would be incomplete without the other.

[Frits]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

I don't mean to be rude, but is English your native language?

No.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

There many but I have recently and repeatedly focused on only three. The first is this: on one hand the posts repeatedly speak of soul and spirit without any mention of the body. That is dualistic. 

Why should it be a duality if I don't mention the body just yet?

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

It's inconsistent to speak or post only in two terms and then deny the inherent and self-evident dualistic nature of that content.

For the sake of clarity and to emphasize soul and spirit, I have chosen not to mention the body in all places, that does not mean that the body is not there.  There's nothing dual about that.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

You said the soul and spirit form a whole being and explicitly separated the body based on its "material" nature.

My apologies "a whole" is a language error. I should have written "a unity", so two distinct parts that belong together, but that together do not form the total whole.  The body is also needed to fully represent the human being.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, how about we don't put it "aside" and we factor it into the conversation where it belongs because..... there is a one-to-one correlation between the body buried and the body raised!!! 

Paul said about this: 

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die." (1Co.15:36)

Because after death the physical body decomposes and matter returns to the earth.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

 It is inconsistent to say the body is earthly and then say it will put on immortality.

This is by no means inconsistent, it is even biblical. I had found a text exactly describing the natural mortal body of blood, flesh and bone being clothed with our spiritual body. 

"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven" (2Co.5:2-4)

By now, the attentive reader will have understood that a human being has two bodies: a) a temporary earthly body by birth, and b) an eternal heavenly body by 'rebirth'.

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." (1Co.15:40)

You will understand Josheb that if I start talking about two bodies in advance, it becomes confusing for some readers.  For that reason I had kept the body in the background for a while. But they are there, both the earthly and the heavenly body.  

"For 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." (2Co.5:1)

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Another inconsistency occurs when in one post agreement with the unified view is stated but in another post doubt about the limitations of the tripartite view is expressed. If the unified view is correct then the tripartite view is wrong. Conversely, if the tripartite view (as expressed by others here in these posts) is correct then the unified view I have articulated and to which you agreed is wrong. The cannot both be simultaneously correct. 

That is an inconsistency. 

I cannot trace this, sorry.  If you want me to clarify something specific, then always Copy / paste please.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Then there is the claim destruction is meaningless punishment followed by the claim of criminals want to disappear in to nowhere.

No it doesn't say that, destruction means a lot!  But if the criminal / sinner at death would be completely dissolved in "nothingness", so his body, his mind, and his soul, with his consciousness, his feelings and his fears in it, then there is nothing at all left to register the destruction or to feel the pain. Then he does not notice the torment in 'the lake of fire', and the punishment is therefore de facto meaningless. But the Bible teaches us the opposite!  At the last judgment man faces his eternal destiny, as indicated by the Lord Jesus in Mat.8:12.  The apostle's teaching goes as follows: 

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
(Rev.20:10)

As I indicated, my posts do not contain any contradiction.  But it may well conflict with your paradigm.
In order to let go of fruitless theories, paradigms and errors, it is a requirement for us to substantiate what we say with a text from the Bible.  That's what the Bible is for.  I asked you to quote the Bible for that reason, but it is very typical that you are not using a Bible text anywhere!  I therefore as a friend recommend again that you do so and submit your private theories to the Word of God.

God bless, Jocheb.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Frits

[David1701]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

E=mc² 

Energy and matter are 1) both created conditions, and 2) variations on a common theme. And if we're gonna speculate "what ifs" then we can make scripture say whatever we want it to say. The facts of scripture the spirits can be seen. If they can be seen they have a body. 

The matter is easily resolved: show me an example in scripture of a disembodied spirit. 

Otherwise, bow to the facts of scripture, the facts that state the spirits can be seen. 

Jesus' spirit was physically disembodied, when he gave up the spirit, at his death.  Every human spirit is disembodied (physically), when a person dies.  I have already provided a few Scriptures that prove this, beyond doubt. 

These first verses you ignored completely.

2 Cor. 5:6-8 (KJV)

6 Therefore 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:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

The following verses you said that you believe, but what you believe contradicts their plain meaning.

Eccl. 12:6,7 (KJV)

6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 

John 19:30 (VW) So when Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, It has been finished! And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.