Paul and Soul / Body Dualism

[childeye]

Not sure what your point is.

My point is basically that in order to understand what a word means, you need to understand what the word meant in the cultural context in which the term was written down. It would make no sense at all for a Jewish writer, to "predict" what 21st century westerners would mean by "soul" and then use the word "soul" in that way in his penning of Scriptures, and trumping the meaning the word carried in his culture.

I assert that there is powerful evidence that the Jews who wrote the Bible used the word "soul" as a descriptive term either for the whole human person (as in "there were 17 souls on the ship that sank - such usage is still permissible), or for describing certain aspects or features of the entire human person, much as we use the term "personality".

When we say "Jane has a nice personality" we are decidedly not claiming that there is this "thing" called "a personality" that mystically inhabits her body and can be separated from it. No, we use the term "personality" is a specifically descriptive mode.

I would define a soul as a vessel of spirit.

 

[Drew]

I would define a soul as a vessel of spirit.

I am not sure exactly what you mean - which is understandable since we are dealing with tricky concepts.

I trust you would agree that we need to understand the intent of the writer - how we "define" the term is not the point.

 

[Drew]

The question that bares consideration then is HOW does God plan of destroying souls.

Even though most disagree with me, I think that when Jesus refers to one who can destroy "body and soul" in hell, He is referring to satan, not God. I will perhaps make the relevant case later.

 

[Drew]

I'm not sure what you mean by immaterial thing. I know when man became a soul it was declared a living soul such as a sentient being. It is necessary that it can exist apart from the body since Jesus' body was in the tomb and yet his soul was in hell for three days and nights. I think this is perfectly clear.

I do not believe you will be able to Biblically make any case that some immaterial "thing" that carried Jesus' consciousness was in "hell" for three days. But, please, make the case if you can.

 

[childeye]

I am not sure exactly what you mean - which is understandable since we are dealing with tricky concepts.

I trust you would agree that we need to understand the intent of the writer - how we "define" the term is not the point.

I get your point as to understanding the intent of the writer. That would go for all writers of scripture. Much can be ascertained in the context the terms are used. We must by default define the terms nontheless when trying to understand the writers definition. Regarding my view that the soul is a vessel of spirit I am doing my best to ascertain what a soul entails using all scripture wherein the term is used as well as the context it is being applied to. I'm certainly not interested in making up my own definitions to fit an image of god of my own making. I want to know the real God so I can know myself for real.

 

[childeye]

I do not believe you will be able to Biblically make any case that some immaterial "thing" that carried Jesus' consciousness was in "hell" for three days. But, please, make the case if you can.

I gave you the scripture saying "you will not leave my soul in hell". Why would he say this if the soul is not in hell? Again what do you mean by "immaterial" and what is the purpose of this application? I've seen no scripture describing the substance of which a soul is made nor do I know the fabric of Angel attire.

 

[Drew]

I gave you the scripture saying "you will not leave my soul in hell". Why would he say this if the soul is not in hell?

Note how the NASB, known for its "accuracy" translates this text:

27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR [z]HOLY ONE TO [aa]UNDERGO DECAY.

Note how the phrase "abandon my soul" does not necessarily force us to understand Jesus' "soul" as having gone to Hades in the first place.

In any event, you may well be right about Jesus being in some sense "in Hades" - I have not studied that issue. Nor do I see this text as contributing to resolving the question about whether the term "soul", in this context anyway. denotes a non-physical "part" of the human person, or rather refers to the totality of the human person. I think it is more likely the latter.

Again what do you mean by "immaterial" and what is the purpose of this application? I've seen no scripture describing the substance of which a soul is made nor do I know the fabric of Angel attire.

By "immaterial", I simply mean non-physical.

 

[childeye]

Note how the NASB, known for its "accuracy" translates this text:

27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR [z]HOLY ONE TO [aa]UNDERGO DECAY.

Note how the phrase "abandon my soul" does not necessarily force us to understand Jesus' "soul" as having gone to Hades in the first place.

In any event, you may well be right about Jesus being in some sense "in Hades" - I have not studied that issue.


By "immaterial", I simply mean non-physical.

There are the souls under the alter in the book of Revelations crying to God, "How Long oh Lord" . They certainly appear to be sentient and the word souls is used there.

 

[Drew]

There are the souls under the alter in the book of Revelations crying to God, "How Long oh Lord" . They certainly appear to be sentient and the word souls is used there.

Yes, but are you suggesting that non-physical souls are crammed under a physical altar? How does that work?

I suggest that the author is using a metaphor.

 

[jasoncran]

True. But such a statement does not necessarily entail the kind of dualism that I am talking about. In such a statement, the term "soul" need not refer to an immaterial consciousness-bearing "thing" - it would equally be a "descriptive" term like the term "personality".

I maintain that the Jews had no sense of the kind of "body-soul" dualism that many modern Christians have actually inherited from the Greeks. I suggest we need to read the Bible, as much as possible, from the perspective of those who wrote it.

why not ask what the jews do believe. that is why i said they use nine words for soul. we only three. i dont think god would say the word personality and body are the same, sorry. i know where you are going with this. the jews also didnt have any idea of heaven either, you wouldnt suggest we abandon that as well as they only had sheol with the righteous dead in area and the wicked in another, very similiar to what the greeks had. almost to the t. that is why its translated hades in the koine greek.

were are met to have bodies and live on the earth buts let no forget we are way more then just flesh. for to die is gain .. and to be absent in body is present with the lord. it all paul was flesh why did he mean by that?

i am in no way suggest any form of gnosticism.

 

[jasoncran]

is God a metaphor? think about it drew, are angels in heaven a metaphor. sure i dont understand the all of the bible but its not meant for us to fully know all of its mysteries,at some point we cant grasp it all.

is satan a metaphor? how can the lord says that he is a god of jacob.. etc and tell the pharissees that these are alive today? if that was a metaphor and the question was on remarriage in the afterlife.

 

[ivdavid]

I suggest they retained the Jewish idea that body and soul cannot really be "separated".

Could you share with us how you came to this understanding from Scripture? By this, I'm not asking for the Biblical references you'd use to support this - I'm just asking what part of Scripture prompted you to think about it this way - or were you always an adherent of the monistic model, which I'm assuming you're not.

Besides, what are the pitfalls of believing the dualistic model and how does the monistic model solve those pitfalls?

One serious concern in the monistic model is that it implies there is no 'real' difference between the flesh and the spirit - that they're just 2 ways of describing the same thing. This would lead to the interpretation of 'walking by the flesh' and 'walking by the Spirit' as just metaphorical ways of saying 'walking by bad morality' and 'walking by good morality'. But the entire Christian premise is that we are sinners - in need of God to work His work in us. We are but flesh until being regenerated into a new spiritual inward man - this man is not a metaphorical way of saying that we have a new perspective - it's a real spiritual creation wherein dwells the Holy Spirit to counter the real workings of sin in our flesh. I'd really like you to consider the post by eventide in the first page.

I admit I haven't understood what monism/dualism actually refer to - I'm only speculating from some preliminary reading and from what's being discussed here. If I've got it wrong, correct me.

 

[Drew]

is God a metaphor? think about it drew, are angels in heaven a metaphor.....

Of course not. Nothing I have posted would lead to such a conclusion.

 

[Drew]

Could you share with us how you came to this understanding from Scripture? By this, I'm not asking for the Biblical references you'd use to support this - I'm just asking what part of Scripture prompted you to think about it this way - or were you always an adherent of the monistic model, which I'm assuming you're not.

Thank you for your question. To be efficient in answering, I will need time to "collect my thoughts" and try to express them as succinctly as possible.

On a related note: I have repeatedly heard the assertion from "historians" that Jews had a view of the nature of the human person that was far more "integrated" than the "Greek" view. This is not a Biblical claim per se, it is a claim that those who have studied Jewish culture have come to the conclusion that Jews did not generally believe in the model of a physical body which "housed" a non-physical soul that was the seat of consciousness. Instead, the Jews generally believed that you could not "split up" the human person into "parts". Again, this is an historical claim, and you have asked for a Biblical argument. While the two cannot be strictly separated, I will try my best to anwser your question as soon as possible.

Besides, what are the pitfalls of believing the dualistic model and how does the monistic model solve those pitfalls?

The major pitfall of the dualistic model is that it implicitly endorses the view that the "physical" is of a lesser order, or importance, than the "non-physical". This leads to (incorrect, in my view) thinking like (1) we will spend eternity in heaven without bodies; (2) God is going to burn up the present physical creation.

Such errors lead to very real consequences - for example, lack of appropriate stewardship of the environment, based on the premise that since this world is going to be "thrown away anyway", there is no real need to be overly concerned about preserving it.

Big mistake, in my opinion.

 

[Drew]

One serious concern in the monistic model is that it implies there is no 'real' difference between the flesh and the spirit - that they're just 2 ways of describing the same thing.

Not in my opinion. Here is the basic misunderstanding people are labouring under as I see it: they think "flesh" denotes physicality in contexts where it actually denotes "fallen humanness". And they think that "spirits" denotes the "non-physical" in contexts where it actually denotes "redeemed humanity".

So the terms "flesh" and "spirit" do denote different things in such contexts.

 

[childeye]

Yes, but are you suggesting that non-physical souls are crammed under a physical altar? How does that work?

I suggest that the author is using a metaphor.

Metaphor or not the implications remain the same. I don't
like the term non-physical being applied here since it asserts a speculation that cannot be ascertained on any level. As I said, I do not know the fabric of Angel attire and neither do you. I feel quite comfortable saying the soul is a vessel of spirit. A container whether physical or spiritual does not matter to me. The sentience of a person? Yes I believe it can be called that but it is the spirit inside that determines the character of the person or sentience.

 

[Sinthesis]

Thank you for your question. To be efficient in answering, I will need time to "collect my thoughts" and try to express them as succinctly as possible.

On a related note: I have repeatedly heard the assertion from "historians" that Jews had a view of the nature of the human person that was far more "integrated" than the "Greek" view. This is not a Biblical claim per se, it is a claim that those who have studied Jewish culture have come to the conclusion that Jews did not generally believe in the model of a physical body which "housed" a non-physical soul that was the seat of consciousness. Instead, the Jews generally believed that you could not "split up" the human person into "parts". Again, this is an historical claim, and you have asked for a Biblical argument. While the two cannot be strictly separated, I will try my best to anwser your question as soon as possible.


The major pitfall of the dualistic model is that it implicitly endorses the view that the "physical" is of a lesser order, or importance, than the "non-physical". This leads to (incorrect, in my view) thinking like (1) we will spend eternity in heaven without bodies; (2) God is going to burn up the present physical creation.

Such errors lead to very real consequences - for example, lack of appropriate stewardship of the environment, based on the premise that since this world is going to be "thrown away anyway", there is no real need to be overly concerned about preserving it.

Big mistake, in my opinion.

Do you have any historic resources that the Jews "had a view of the nature of the human person that was far more "integrated" than the "Greek" view"?

Were these the views of the Pharisees or Sadducees?

Do the Pharisees or Sadducees have a reliable record of interpreting our status in creation?

Was revealed truth confined only to the Jews?

Did the finished work of The Messiah have an affect on the destiny of humanity?

There is more than one way to express a dualistic model. Further, the idea that the wasteful actions of confused and selfish evangelical Christians somehow disproves the dualistic nature of humanity is clearly a strawman.

 

[Drew]

Do you have any historic resources that the Jews "had a view of the nature of the human person that was far more "integrated" than the "Greek" view"?

Biblical scholar NT Wright asserts this, and I have heard other historians make the same claim. However, that is all I have in terms of support for the non-Biblical "historical" perspective.

Were these the views of the Pharisees or Sadducees?

Don't know.

Do the Pharisees or Sadducees have a reliable record of interpreting our status in creation?

Do not understand what you are asking.

Was revealed truth confined only to the Jews?

Not sure why you are asking me this. An assertion that Jews believed in a highly integrated human person - one where "soul" and "body" were not in any sense separate things - does not entail any kind of claim that other cultures did not share this view.

Did the finished work of The Messiah have an affect on the destiny of humanity?

I really do not know why you ask this question. Surely you would know that I would answer a resounding "yes" to this (unless you have not read many of my posts). In any event, I do not see the connection between this question and the issue of different views about the "constitution" of the human person.

There is more than one way to express a dualistic model. Further, the idea that the wasteful actions of confused and selfish evangelical Christians somehow disproves the dualistic nature of humanity is clearly a strawman.

I have no idea what your point is. The "truth status" of the dualistic view is entirely independent of what people believe - the reality is what it is, regardless of what people think.

Who are these "confused and selfish evangelical Christians"?

 

[childeye]

Not in my opinion. Here is the basic misunderstanding people are labouring under as I see it: they think "flesh" denotes physicality in contexts where it actually denotes "fallen humanness". And they think that "spirits" denotes the "non-physical" in contexts where it actually denotes "redeemed humanity".

So the terms "flesh" and "spirit" do denote different things in such contexts.

Ouite the semantic conundrum you have shown here. Are these new contexts not actually new definitions? Are you saying then that redeemed fallen humaness is spiritual as in spirit being regenerated? Is humanity and humaness in this new context refering to mankind or rather a disposition in mankind?

 

[jasoncran]

Of course not. Nothing I have posted would lead to such a conclusion.

just so you knew based on what i have read up on from chabad.org and jewfaq.org theres no hebrew consesus on what happens in the afterlife its said the souls of the dead may be placed into hell as the christians believe and so with the good. others say they dont know and leave that to God.

that is the current hebrew position based on the talmud and tanakh. of the pre christ ones i would have to look into the oral traditions of the talmud then, man i whish i had the tanakh with me.


the reason i say that drew is the visions of men in heaven wearing white robes implies heaven exists and the dead saints are there. yet no ressurection of the judgment is mentioned for those in the first ressurection. hmmm

so if the dead are merely not raised why then does the visions of john state the total opposite?


you also have to deal with the problem of adam dying the very day he ate of the tree of knowledge.what did die? it cant be his flesh. he lived quite a long time after that event.