Therefore, what consensus is there for any evidence for a soul(s)? As the existence of the soul is very central to any belief or religion.
(my first post
)What is a soul?
Moderator: Moderators
What is a soul?
Post #1It is fact that the Physical Brain controls memories, personality. Thousands of other actions are all controlled by our nervous system, which is managed by our brains.
Therefore, what consensus is there for any evidence for a soul(s)? As the existence of the soul is very central to any belief or religion.
(my first post)
Therefore, what consensus is there for any evidence for a soul(s)? As the existence of the soul is very central to any belief or religion.
(my first post
)Post #121
[Replying to post 86 by hoghead1]
"In Scripture, everything has a physical dimension, including God, to whom is attributed about every body part, hands, eyes, feet, etc. Hnece, the risen Christ also has a body. Mind and matter are one in Scripture. Survival beyond the grace is survival in a physical form."
That God has hands, eyes etc is mentioned in the scripture and yes as to function, not shape.
Survival of the physical form is not scriptural.
Flesh and blood can not enter the spiritual; it's called spiritual because it is not physical.
"In Scripture, everything has a physical dimension, including God, to whom is attributed about every body part, hands, eyes, feet, etc. Hnece, the risen Christ also has a body. Mind and matter are one in Scripture. Survival beyond the grace is survival in a physical form."
That God has hands, eyes etc is mentioned in the scripture and yes as to function, not shape.
Survival of the physical form is not scriptural.
Flesh and blood can not enter the spiritual; it's called spiritual because it is not physical.
Post #122
You are completely correct in seeing an overlap in the meaning of spirit and soul. I've already pointed out that in Latin spiritus and anima are very closely linked. The key passage :hoghead1 wrote:
Also, I gave you some strong examples where soul and spirit overlap in Scripture, which you have yet to address.
"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,"
is not definitive as some make out.
What does "breath of life" actually mean? If Adam "became", what was he before this breath of life - was he Adam? It seems sensible to take the verse to mean that we had a heap of clay in the form of a man, Adam, and then this man was endowed with a soul which imbued the clay with its life. Adam was a man of clay; now he was a living soul. We can regard this as synecdoche if we want to quibble.
Death would then be the departure of this living soul from the body. The soul in its second stage would still be Adam, called to judgment when the day came.
The honest thing to do here is simply say that the Bible gives no guidance and we must take a sensible interpretation. Given that language is such that soul can mean something spiritual or it can mean person, we can't be dogmatic.
My thoughts and sympathies are with you.
Post #123
[Replying to post 118 by JehovahsWitness]
The Bible does not provide a detailed account of teh afterlife and often seems to have presented conflicting pictures. In Sheole, souls seem alive, but are maybe only semi-conscious. In other passages, such as we find in Paul, a much fuller, richer afterlife is talked about.
The Bible does not provide a detailed account of teh afterlife and often seems to have presented conflicting pictures. In Sheole, souls seem alive, but are maybe only semi-conscious. In other passages, such as we find in Paul, a much fuller, richer afterlife is talked about.
Post #124
[Replying to post 120 by JehovahsWitness]
I'm sorry, but if Post 115 was intended to address his issue, I sure don't see it.
I'm sorry, but if Post 115 was intended to address his issue, I sure don't see it.
Post #125
[Replying to post 119 by JehovahsWitness]
I am simply saying that Paul, for example, makes it clear that persons survive beyond the grave, with some sort of superdooper body. He says nothing about more, leaving all the key details up in the air.
True, pagan religions, especially that of ancient Egypt, strongly believed in live beyond the grace. And that simply shows there is a uniformity among the world religions. Originally, the Christian religion did not share the disdain for "pagan" ideas that we find later. Augustine, for example, said there were many treasures among teh pagans that we should use. The classical or traditional Christian model of God largely was an import from Hellenic substance metaphysics. As matter of fact, it was the influx of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection that spurned the anti-Trinitarian movement. In short, the Arians argued that Christ suffered and Christ changed. Therefore Christ could not be God, as God cannot change and certainly cannot experience any emotions, especially negative ones, such as suffering. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable; and both the Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians did the exact same thing. So, you have to be careful when you point the finger and denounce something as pagan; you need to remember that the WatchTower Society is considered a heretical, pagan movement, in many Christian circles.
But we are getting off topic. The issue we were addressing was the relationship of spirit to soul. Again, my point is that these cannot be sharply distinguished from one another. I presented you with biblical examples to support my point, and you did not address them. Again, Post 115 came nowhere near.
I am simply saying that Paul, for example, makes it clear that persons survive beyond the grave, with some sort of superdooper body. He says nothing about more, leaving all the key details up in the air.
True, pagan religions, especially that of ancient Egypt, strongly believed in live beyond the grace. And that simply shows there is a uniformity among the world religions. Originally, the Christian religion did not share the disdain for "pagan" ideas that we find later. Augustine, for example, said there were many treasures among teh pagans that we should use. The classical or traditional Christian model of God largely was an import from Hellenic substance metaphysics. As matter of fact, it was the influx of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection that spurned the anti-Trinitarian movement. In short, the Arians argued that Christ suffered and Christ changed. Therefore Christ could not be God, as God cannot change and certainly cannot experience any emotions, especially negative ones, such as suffering. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable; and both the Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians did the exact same thing. So, you have to be careful when you point the finger and denounce something as pagan; you need to remember that the WatchTower Society is considered a heretical, pagan movement, in many Christian circles.
But we are getting off topic. The issue we were addressing was the relationship of spirit to soul. Again, my point is that these cannot be sharply distinguished from one another. I presented you with biblical examples to support my point, and you did not address them. Again, Post 115 came nowhere near.
Post #126
[Replying to post 112 by JehovahsWitness]
Paul draws a distinction between our earthly body and our heavenly body, but it is not clear to me what exactly this means. Paul leave out many key details. The uniformity here is that we do exist some sort of physical state in Heaven. That makes sense to me, because anything real has extension, and extension is the basic characteristic of matter.
Paul draws a distinction between our earthly body and our heavenly body, but it is not clear to me what exactly this means. Paul leave out many key details. The uniformity here is that we do exist some sort of physical state in Heaven. That makes sense to me, because anything real has extension, and extension is the basic characteristic of matter.
Post #127
[Replying to Monta]
Good point. When God visited Abraham with two angels on his way to Sodom , he sat and ate and talked with Abe like a man.
Good point. When God visited Abraham with two angels on his way to Sodom , he sat and ate and talked with Abe like a man.
Post #128
Thanks. The Bible is not a book of systematic theooogy or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is built, for example. The Bible is definitely not a scierntific work. God's definitive, salvific revelations occur in history, not nature. In nature religions where the deity or deities are explanatory principles of nature, the creation accounts go on for pages and pages. In the Bible, the creation account is over and one with in a page. Many key details are left out. it does not tell why God created, when, or really how. Maybe out of a pre-existent chaos, maybe out of nothing. Also, Gen. 1 and 2 represent two highly contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. These accounts are in two very different literary styles, with 2 probably being the oldest. The biblical redactors simply butt edited them together, as they couldn't decide which account was correct. And really, they probably didn't care. Their task was to lavish great time on God's actions in history, specifically the history of ancient Israel. So, yes, we do have to look for guidance from other sources, which is why the early church began incorporating Hellenic metaphysics.
Post #129
Survival in physical form is definitely what the Bible has in mind. That is precisely what Paul says in I Cor. 15. We will all have bodies, different though they may be from earthly bodies. Note that he doesn't say how. Survival in physical form is also given in the images of the resurrected Christ. Thomas could se the holes in his hands.
The major, defining characteristic of matter is that it has extension, occupies space. Hence, the traditional definition of the immaterial was that it has no extension. But something without any extension is tantamount to absolutely nothing being there, as far as I am concerned. So I am not at all surprised that the Bible speaks of us as having bodies beyond the grave, whatever they may be.
Many persons fail to recognize the physicality of God in the Bible, because we have all been raised in the tenets of classical theism or the traditional Christian model of God. Accordingly, God is wholly immaterial, without extension, having then no parts. But that notion came from the influx of Hellenic metaphysics into the church, not Scripture.
The major, defining characteristic of matter is that it has extension, occupies space. Hence, the traditional definition of the immaterial was that it has no extension. But something without any extension is tantamount to absolutely nothing being there, as far as I am concerned. So I am not at all surprised that the Bible speaks of us as having bodies beyond the grave, whatever they may be.
Many persons fail to recognize the physicality of God in the Bible, because we have all been raised in the tenets of classical theism or the traditional Christian model of God. Accordingly, God is wholly immaterial, without extension, having then no parts. But that notion came from the influx of Hellenic metaphysics into the church, not Scripture.
Post #130
[Replying to post 128 by hoghead1]
" Also, Gen. 1 and 2 represent two highly contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. These accounts are in two very different literary styles, with 2 probably being the oldest. The biblical redactors simply butt edited them together, as they couldn't decide which account was correct. And really, they probably didn't care. Their task was to lavish great time on God's actions in history, specifically the history of ancient Israel. So, yes, we do have to look for guidance from other sources, which is why the early church began incorporating Hellenic metaphysics."
The whole Bible and mostly NT is about man, his soul and his salvation.
Why should we assume that it was important to God to tell us about creation of the world when that has nothing to do with man's eternal destiny?
We accuse the 'biblical redactors' they couldn't decide which account was correct, and then we have a gall to call it the Word of God?
Why not leave all this alone and 'look for guidance from other sources'?
" Also, Gen. 1 and 2 represent two highly contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. These accounts are in two very different literary styles, with 2 probably being the oldest. The biblical redactors simply butt edited them together, as they couldn't decide which account was correct. And really, they probably didn't care. Their task was to lavish great time on God's actions in history, specifically the history of ancient Israel. So, yes, we do have to look for guidance from other sources, which is why the early church began incorporating Hellenic metaphysics."
The whole Bible and mostly NT is about man, his soul and his salvation.
Why should we assume that it was important to God to tell us about creation of the world when that has nothing to do with man's eternal destiny?
We accuse the 'biblical redactors' they couldn't decide which account was correct, and then we have a gall to call it the Word of God?
Why not leave all this alone and 'look for guidance from other sources'?
