What is a "soul?"

[Alive]

6 minutes ago, David1701 said:

1) We have this treasure in earthen vessels.

2 Cor. 4:7 (KJV) But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. 

2) We can (and do, at death) leave the earthen vessel, but we remain fully human, with our soul/spirit.

Ecc. 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.

2 Cor. 5:6-8 (VW)

6 So we are always confident, knowing that while 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, yes, preferring rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

3) We will be reunited with our vessel (much improved), at the resurrection.

Acts 2:30,31 (VW)

30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne;
31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.

Rom. 6:5 (VW) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in resurrection,

Several of the these Scriptures have been given previously; but there are a couple of posters who do not want to believe some of them.

What it comes down to is this. Hopefully, I can articulate it. Starting with "we have this treasure in earthen vessels". Yes of course--that treasure is Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Being absent from what body? This present body--correct?

None of these scriptures say that there won't be a body.

Look at it this way for a moment. When a believer dies and goes to the dirt at some point in earthly time the resurrection takes place and he gets his new body--incorruptible, but in the heavely realm where yesterday and today is the same (God's perspective-the heavenly perspective) that saint is there. To him no time has passed. To be absent from the old body is to be present with the Lord.

In the grave the dead know nothing--but are raised and know. Everything fits when we see from God's perspective.

We can't fit these things into Christ and His experience because He isn't capable of ever not knowing as He is God. His experience is unique.

[Alive]

Again--I think in terms of principles. God created us of a kind and that kind--that 'being'--that ontological reality is composed of body soul and spirit--the parts are the whole and the whole is the parts.

He chose to make us this way and He declared us to be living beings of a kind.

Perhaps He 'could have' made us as brain, soul and spirit, but He didn't. He made us beings that have the faculties to interact with a material universe. Eyes that facilitate light, ears that facilitate sound and an organ that can (tactile) appreciate what is also solid or not so solid substance.

I don't believe that any of God's creatures are made as hovering nothings with zero substance. I could be wrong in all of this, but to me it fits the whole of scripture best.

I find it interesting to discuss and think about. We are on this adventure together.

The body sown is not the body raised, but it is a body. Praise the Lord!

 

[etymology]

27 minutes ago, Alive said:

Again--I think in terms of principles. God created us of a kind and that kind--that 'being'--that ontological reality is composed of body soul and spirit--the parts are the whole and the whole is the parts.

He chose to make us this way and He declared us to be living beings of a kind.

Perhaps He 'could have' made us as brain, soul and spirit, but He didn't. He made us beings that have the faculties to interact with a material universe. Eyes that facilitate light, ears that facilitate sound and an organ that can (tactile) appreciate what is also solid or not so solid substance.

I don't believe that any of God's creatures are made as hovering nothings with zero substance. I could be wrong in all of this, but to me it fits the whole of scripture best.

I find it interesting to discuss and think about. We are on this adventure together.

The body sown is not the body raised, but it is a body. Praise the Lord!

 

The discussion hasn't even begun.

[etymology]

 

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

I think the point being made is a blueberry muffin absent any blueberries is not properly called a blueberry muffin, any more than a chocolate chip cookie absent any chocolate is correctly called a chocolate chip cookie. 

A blueberry muffin absent any blueberries is not an actual blueberry muffin and it's hard to separate the blueberries from the muffin and have it remain a blueberry muffin because it is the inherent nature of a BBM that the blueberries becomes so combined with the other elements that the berry and the bread cannot be extricated from one another. A little different with chocolate chip cookies. 

We can speak of blueberries and we can speak of blueberries in the muffin but we cannot properly extricate the blueberries wholly from the muffin and still have a blueberry muffin, not any more than we can extricate the eggs or flour from the muffin. The Bible speaks of body, soul, and spirit so we too can speak of them but we cannot speak of them as being so separate that the human creature persists without one of the parts. That's like having a BBM without the BBs. 

So is your argument that Alive was correct to use the blueberry muffin example because the chocolate can be removed from the cookie even after it is cooked? Whereas the blueberry muffin is cooked to an inseparable, albeit not indistinct texture? 

[etymology]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

The tripartite nature of the tripartite nature that also includes the cognitive, emotional, volitional, and behavioral aspects of what it means to be human.

"God, the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person, but each one of them is a triune being by himself.  If I can shock you and maybe I should, there are nine of them.... God the Father is a person with his own personal spirit, with his own personal soul, and his own personal spirit body.  You say, ."I never heard of that." Well do you think you're in this church to hear things you've heard for the last fifty years?  You can't argue with the Word can you?  It's all in the Word. " (Benny Hinn)

 

[etymology]

17 minutes ago, Josheb said:

No, not my point at all. Go back and re-read the posts. 

Non sequitur. 

I have gone back and read the posts. Your reply to myself did elaborate on the blueberry muffing part and expressed that the blueberry muffin, unlike the chocolate chip cookie could not be separated easily after the baking process was complete. That did seem to be the strength of the essence of your main thrust of argument. I suppose I should have added, existentially speaking to my question you have so kindly answered now. 

To the term the baking process: 

Quote

but we cannot properly extricate the blueberries wholly from the muffin and still have a blueberry muffin, not any more than we can extricate the eggs or flour from the muffin.

I feel like I have mistakenly joined the Great British Bake Off by some random chance of Quantum Mechanics.

As to the non sequitur one would need the logic of your argument in its completeness as outlined in the post from which I took the tripartite nature of the tripartite nature quote before you could insist that someone is arguing in a non sequitur manner. Unless you mean that you are speaking about man and that Benny Hinn is speaking about God! Weren't we made in the image and likeness of God? 

[etymology]

50 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I do. 

Yes, but the image of God born in humanity is not itself God. The finite does not compare to the Infinite, the creature to the Creator, nor the pot to the Potter, even if and when made in His image. Apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, etc. 

It would appear that there is always a way to refuse any reason and to deny any precept and to embellish any point so long as it makes some benefit to your argument. 

How would I come by the rules of discourse for the Worthy Forums? 

[etymology]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

All of the above plus more. 

Humans are 1) moral, 2) social, and 3) spiritual. We are individually and collectively made in God's image male and female so no thorough explanation of the soul can neglect the moral, social, and spiritual aspects of the soul (or body, or spirit). Our individual bodies exist in-relationship to all the other bodies around us and in Christ where the soul realizes its fuller potential the individual's body (and/or soul, and/or spirit) is simply one member of a much larger body, the body of Christ. Are we to conclude membership in the body of Christ is solely a "body" condition and not also a "soul" and simultaneously "spirit" condition? 

Everyone here, including me has asserted some form of reductionism. If we wanted to truly answer the question, "What is the soul?" we'd include the many truths (plural) pertaining to the moral, social, and spiritual nature of the soul. The tripartite nature of the tripartite nature that also includes the cognitive, emotional, volitional, and behavioral aspects of what it means to be human. As I alluded to earlier, it's not one, or two, or three, or a pair of threes, etc.; the soul is a constituent element is a very complex fully-integrated amalgam of numerous elements that constitute what we call "human being." If we don't view this more holistically we're not answering the question adequately. 

Are these the rules?

[etymology]

2 minutes ago, etymology said:

As I alluded to earlier, it's not one, or two, or three, or a pair of threes, etc.; the soul is a constituent element is a very complex fully-integrated amalgam of numerous elements that constitute what we call "human being."

Have you heard or read:

The Tripartite Nature of Man: Spirit, Soul, and Body, Applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body.

John Bickford Heard Published 1923

May I also ask you if you hold to Annihilationism? 

[Alive]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

All of the above plus more. 

Humans are 1) moral, 2) social, and 3) spiritual. We are individually and collectively made in God's image male and female so no thorough explanation of the soul can neglect the moral, social, and spiritual aspects of the soul (or body, or spirit). Our individual bodies exist in-relationship to all the other bodies around us and in Christ where the soul realizes its fuller potential the individual's body (and/or soul, and/or spirit) is simply one member of a much larger body, the body of Christ. Are we to conclude membership in the body of Christ is solely a "body" condition and not also a "soul" and simultaneously "spirit" condition? 

Everyone here, including me has asserted some form of reductionism. If we wanted to truly answer the question, "What is the soul?" we'd include the many truths (plural) pertaining to the moral, social, and spiritual nature of the soul. The tripartite nature of the tripartite nature that also includes the cognitive, emotional, volitional, and behavioral aspects of what it means to be human. As I alluded to earlier, it's not one, or two, or three, or a pair of threes, etc.; the soul is a constituent element is a very complex fully-integrated amalgam of numerous elements that constitute what we call "human being." If we don't view this more holistically we're not answering the question adequately. 

Amen--I agree. There is so much more and there is so much more, I postulate, that we can't possible understand now.

I have always been fascinated by that bit in Gen. "male and female made He them".

I am convinced that if we could truly mine the depths of that jewel, we would be quite thoroughly floored. I am convinced, I get the outer edges and even those are enough to make me shut up. I believe somewhere along the line the angels got wind of this and it caused quite a stir and those that remained loyal stand in awe of His 'eternal purpose'.

Jesus Christ.....