Kevin writes > Anyway [it] can't be as stated above
since in the NT it is used as a part of the person, not the whole.
1 th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;
and I pray God your whole spirit and soul
and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
And (elsewhere) Kevin writes > C'MON JD, Who
scripture twists? ... Besides doctrine should not be built on ONE lone
verse ...
To be fair to Kevin and Judy, it is not they who have
built a doctrine on one lone verse. It was actually Augustine who did this. The
Church, being quite Western by then (and not wanting to tangle with the great
Saint Hippo) has just sort of wallowed with him ever since. As for
Kevin and Judy: well, not knowing, of course, what has taken place,
they (being ignorant of historical shifts and the subtle
philosophies of their own, shall we say, psyches) have become great, and I mean
truly superb, defenders of the faith once delivered
-- by Augustine, of course.
Anyway, not much hope in changing minds on this one
-- so til next time,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:12
AM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation
Many Hebrew words have many meanings. There is latitude in the greek
also. See the usage of different words for love and the "inconsistent"
usage.
H5315 ����
nephesh neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a
breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly)
vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative
sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X
dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart
(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind,
mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them
(your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would
have it.
I accept the words at face value and do not create personal translations,
so that in reading them to insert that personal translation.
For instance a water dog says water equals baptism so he may read
scripture "thus by the washing of the water (baptism) of the word
(Jesus)"
We have better processing equipment than some give credit. See the
typoglycemia post
The words meaning can also be derived from sentence structure and from
context.
when we talk of souls we are talking about
whole persons: body, mind and spirit.
Anyway can't be as stated above since in the NT it is used as a part of
the person, not the whole.
1 th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you
wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and
soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Just cause you do not understand it does not mean it is ambiguous.
God created man in His image as a TRI Unit ( notice not Greek
Duality for those of you stuck on philosophy out there) being 1) Body 2)
Soul & 3) Spirit
Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It says "soul" it means "soul" that is not interpreting.
For examples of intrepreting see some of the "better" posters on
TT
or the million dollar question:
Which is a private interpretation?
Soul = Soul
Soul= when we talk of souls we are talking
about whole persons: body, mind and spirit.
The Hebrew word sometimes translated
into English as "soul" (when it was not being translated into any of
twenty-six other possible variations), is nephesh. The following is
a sampling of OT verses with nephesh present in them. Do me a favor
and try to identify this word in each verse. If when you are finished, you
still want to argue, I guess we can, -- but my position will be that
nephesh in the Hebrew is a workhorse word which was used in
numerous ways to speak not just about an ambiguously wispy "soul" but of
whole persons.
Bill
KJV Exodus 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then
he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
KJV Deuteronomy 18:6 And if a Levite come from any of thy
gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come with all the desire of
his mind unto the place which the LORD shall choose;
KJV Deuteronomy 24:15 At his day thou shalt give him
his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor,
and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and
it be sin unto thee.
KJV Judges 5:18 Zebulun and Naphtali were a people
that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the
field.
KJV Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is
in thine hand; but save his life.
JV Job 18:4 He teareth himself in his anger: shall the earth
be forsaken for thee? and shall the rock be removed out of his place?
JV Job 32:2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of
Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath
kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.
KJV Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out
of his mouth.
KJV Psalm 105:18 Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was
laid in iron:
JV Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
KJV Proverbs 14:10 The heart knoweth his own bitterness; and a
stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy.
KJV Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put
him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the
pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:45
AM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation
It says "soul" it means "soul" that is not interpreting.
For examples of intrepreting see some of the "better" posters on
TT
or the million dollar question:
Which is a private interpretation?
Soul = Soul
Soul= when we talk of souls we are
talking about whole persons: body, mind and spirit.
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As you, and perhaps others interpret
Scripture, vis a vis the 'soul' you are COMPLETELY GREEK IN YOUR
UNDERSTANDING. Can I get an AMEN?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 20, 2005 08:33
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation
Blind guides. This must be
where 'G' gets his inspiration also as Jeeves makes mention of all the
same Geeks - oophs!
I mean Greeks. Studying the physical
brain to try and find the soul is on the same level as getting
on Sputnik and flying out into space expecting to see God...
and excuse me - The idea of an immortal soul arises from Genesis 2:7
which is NOT Greek thought... Then he wades through the
hodgepodge called tradition (that makes God's Word of no effect) and
quotes what Origen thought (that is the guy who castrated himself
because he didn't understand that the power emanating from the cross
could free him from lust) and mixes it with a little Plato and
Augustine. This may be where Jeeves gets his wisdom but he can
have it. Jeeves doesn't know his Bible. Soul does not mean
body, mind, and spirit
just becaue the oldtimers used to
call people souls. Soul means soul. Mind means
mind. and spirit means spirit. Spirit and soul can be divided by
God's Word... and both are different from the physical
body.
What a waste of time that could be redeemed
by spending it in the presence and counsel of God.
jt
(1) Beliefs - Whatever happened to the soul? (by Malcolm
Jeeves)
First, I am suggesting that statements about the physical nature of
human beings made from the
perspective of biology or neuroscience refer
to exactly the same entity as statements made about the soulish or
spiritual nature of persons from the point review of theology or
religious traditions. This disavows the suggestion that human science
speaks about a physical being whilst theology and religion speak about
a non-material essence or soul. Perhaps a better way of saying this is
that when we talk of
souls we are talking about whole persons: body, mind and
spirit. One might say "we are souls, we don't have
souls". Such a view contrasts sharply with
views of soul and body in, for example, Socrates discourse on death.
He wrote "Does not death mean that the body comes to exist by itself,
separated from the soul, and that the soul exists by herself,
separated from the body? What is death but that?� (Socrates, Plato's
Phaedo, Fourth century BC). The idea of an immortal soul arises not from
the Bible but from Greek thought. In the end, Plato records that Socrates lived out his own
teaching by drinking the poison hemlock in the serene conviction that
his immortal soul would now find release from its bodily prison. For
Socrates and Plato, bodily death was a welcome liberation. Indeed, it
was actually not dying.
In the centuries after Christ, theologians combined this
Greek doctrine of the immortal
soul with biblical images of human nature.
When Origen, a third century
platonic philosopher, became the father of theology, he built into
Christian doctrine Plato's idea of the soul.
In the early fifth century, Augustine thought Plato to be the most bright in all of
philosophy. And in the sixteenth century, John Calvin, who was heavily
influenced by both Plato and Augustine, declared that Plato alone
"rightly affirmed" the immortal soul that "lies hidden in man separate
from body".
Second, whilst scriptural teachings about the image of God do not, by
their nature address directly any dualism-physicalism distinction,
there is at the same time nothing in their teachings that necessitates
belief in an ontologically
distinct soul. What is clear from Scripture is that the image of God
is primarily relational.
That is, it implies a capacity to enter into a covenant
relationship with God and with other humans. Humans are considered
unique from the rest of God's creation primarily due to their capacity
for covenant relationships.
Third, any ideas we have about the nature of persons ultimately
affect the way we treat one another. What we understand about human
nature impacts on our ethics. Are there any consequences of the views
I am putting forward which might start us on a slippery slope of
ethical or moral decline? In the past, dualist views have certainly
sustained a sense of caution about what can appropriately be done to
besouled bodies of other individuals. If an immmortal soul is present,
doesn't this force one to continue to honour and love the seriously
mentally defective or demented? The medical ethicist Stephen Post,
whilst recognizing that in the past dualism has played a protective
role within ethical systems, suggests that the fundamental biblical
motive for the care of those who have little ability to reciprocate is
not to be found in a dualist consideration of the soul of the other
person. Rather, he argues, it emerges from the ethos of bestowed love
and from the narratives of Jesus amongst the most vulnerable. Thus a
narrative of love and consideration to helpless, dying or deficient
persons is sufficient motive, and perhaps a more purely biblical
motive, than the consideration of a separate substantial soul.
(2) Practices-The Mind-Brain link and the Christian Life
By emphasising, in the way that I have, the unity of the human
person, I am, by implication, suggesting that the spiritual dimension to a person's life is no more immune to changes in the brain than other
aspects of mental life. Such a suggestion, at times, seems to surprise
and trouble, some Christian people. I do not believe that it should
and may I now give you three brief examples to illustrate why I think
this is the case,
There are a number of well documented cases of what happens to
devout Christians when they develop Alzheimer's disease. The
psychologist professor Glenn Weaver documents the spiritual pilgrimage
of a devout Christian lady who after a life of regular attendance at
church services where she was well known as a gentle Christian, with a
deep concern for her fellow Christians , she began to develop the tell tale symptoms of
increasing forgetfulness. She struggled with the problem in the way
that many people do but she was fighting a losing battle. She found that she could no longer remember the names of
those she wanted to pray for and her letters became verbose and lost much of their
content. This in turn made her increasingly
anxious; and her anxiety led onto depression and the classical
textbook description of developing Alzheimer's disease became evident.
Glenn Weaver, however, points out that in her case there was much
more to her experience than the usual textbook account. She was deeply troubled about her
relationship with God. She felt she was personally responsible for
falling away from her former close walk with God ,and that she was
deserting her friends through her friendship and prayers. She concluded that because of her lack of faith God was
setting her aside because she was no longer fit for his service.
As she continued she became more confused and began to lose control
of her natural processes and away from the security provided by her
home and husband, she would wander about violating the commands of her
nurses and then describing bizarre sexual disturbances in an explicit
way. She came to believe she'd
committed sins that provoked God's wrath and the continued
deterioration of her condition and the fact that the doctors could not
help her confirmed her in her beliefs. Eventually she lost all interest in her daily devotions and
prayer. The main point here is quite simple; with neural changes there are
psychological consequences and these in turn affect spiritual
awareness. Such is the unity of the human person.
My second example is the attempts to explore the association of
some forms of religiosity and
the occurrence of mystical experiences with their possible neural
substrates, an attempt which has continued
from time to time over the last thirty years. Many who write on the
topic begin with the apostle Paul's Damascus Road experience and then
quickly move on to talk about the religiosity of the typical epileptic patient, something which has been recognised since at least 1838 by
Esquirol.
The debate will continue as more evidence becomes available.
However, as one recent study by David Tucker and his associates has
reported, "the data indicate that hyper-religiosity is not a
consistent interictal trait of individuals with temporal lobe
epilepsy. Further, although hyper-religiosity and temporal lobe
epilepsy may co-occur in a few individuals, it does not appear to be a
direct causal relationship between repeated seizure discharge in the
temporal lobes and hyper-religiosity."
Third, I suggest that a return to a more holistic view of the human
person, prompted in part by recent developments in neuroscience has
helpful implications, I believe, for understanding the spiritual
distresses that are well documented in the experiences of Christian
leaders and from which we all, from time to time, suffer . It means that the spiritual dimension to our personality
is not immune to the changes in our biological and neural substrates. I have already given you one example of this in the
specific instance of Altzheimers disease.
The psychiatrist Gaius Davies has documented how some of the
outstanding men and women of God whom all acknowledge have been
greatly used by him are also found on close study often to be those
who have endured significant swings in the immediacy of their felt
awareness of the presence and power of God. Davies shows how in the
case of some of these people it is possible for us, with the benefit
of hindsight, and informed by the advances in psychiatry at the end of
the 20th-century, to be fairly sure that some of their experiences
were pathological in the sense that today we would classify them in
accepted categories of psychological illness.
Some were obsessive compulsive, some were manic depressive, some
struggled with specific phobias, and so on. Among those studied by
Gaius Davies were John Bunyan and Amy Carmichael, William Cowper, CS
Lewis, Martin Luther, Gerard Manley Hopkins and J. B.
Phillips . The relevance of his studies to us
today is that there are those amongst them whose illness probably had
a significant biological and biochemical etiology and these would
include Luther, Cowper,
Shaftesbury and Phillips. Luther was probably an obsessive
compulsive/depressive; Cowper suffered six serious depressive
breakdowns and made several suicide attempts; Shaftesbury was probably
a manic/depressive suffering from a bi-polar affective disorder (he
reported how his moods swung from �wild joy� to �cruel despondency�.
Phillips was probably an obsessive-compulsive.
Despite all these things they triumphed to our lasting benefit. We do
indeed �have this treasure in earthen vessels�.
Those of you, who like me enjoyed the fascinating BBC television series by Susan
Greenfield on the brain, may remember that in
her first lecture she made several references to the religious or spiritual dimension to a
person's life and personality. It is
interesting that following her presentation there were a number of
letters to the press complaining that she was attacking religion and
the spiritual dimension to life.
While we can understand the sensitivity, for some people, of
singling out religion for reference in this way, a little thought
would quickly indicate that it was unjustified. To be more specific,
Susan Greenfield could as easily have indicated that in due time,
using appropriate brain imaging techniques, we may be able to say a
little more about which systems
in the brain are most active when she is
talking about brains and their properties.
No one, I think, would have then gone on to argue that because we
may understand something of brain mechanisms underlying her
fascinating presentations, therefore, we could give no validity to the
brain story that she was telling us. In a word, understanding something about the brain
mechanisms underlying mental life tells us nothing, one way or the
other about the truth claims of the statements being made at the
time.
To be more specific because this is an important point, she could
as easily showed us a picture of Einstein's brain drawing
attention to some of its unusual features, but this would have told us nothing at all, one way or
the other about the truth of his theories.
What I believe is much more relevant is that by welcoming every new bit of information about
the neural substrates of spirituality, should
give us insights which will enable us to understand ourselves better,
but more importantly will enable us to show more sympathy and
compassion to those who may be going through what in past centuries
used to be called " the dark
night of the soul".
His most recent book is 'From Cells to
Souls - and Beyond' (editor) with an essay by Alan Torrance entitled
'What is a Person?' It addresses the important
issue of the mind/brain as well as the
rampant dualism and gnosticism one sees in society at large,
the believing community and, on TT.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 19, 2005
21:49
Subject: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] Saved - Salvation
"Portraits of
Human Nature: Scientific & Theological" by Malcolm
Jeeves. Anyway, I think that is what you are talking about. I
was thinking I had sent one of his books home with you. Is that
right?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 19,
2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Saved - Salvation
Bill
, what was the title and author of that CD from the
pyschiatrist we listened to some on the trip to Miss?
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Make
Yahoo! your home page
|
