Does the human soul consciously exist following death

[Oscar3]

Gui, drewp and Jay T
It looks like you guys recieved the smackdown again.
Gui, gIVE it up with the greek words also as it seems that everytime you bring one up, you get :smt075

 

[guibox]

???????, ???????? [thanatos /than·at·os/]
1 the death of the body. 1a that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended. 1b with the implied idea of future misery in hell. 1b1 the power of death. 1c since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin.

2 metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,. 2a the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell.

3 the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell. 4 in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated

Enhanced strongs lexicon

jg, Strong's usage and interpretation of 'thanatos' is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe the assumptions he puts into his definitions.

First of all, please explain how 'thanatos' when speaking about this life means 'death' but in the afterlife means 'eternal conscious torment'.

Please explain this to me when the wicked do not have immortal souls or bodies to be consciously burned.

I have no respect for Strong's concordance as it obviously imposes preconceived ideas into the words that cannot be supported by the context of the scriptures.

 

[Oscar3]

Guibox
Don't get upset because you hung your theology on a few words and have now discovered that you are wrong.

Simply repent and move forward.

 

[guibox]

From 2 Corinithians:

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

This text does not really add any more evidence to one side of this debate than the other. If taken as a technical 3rd person description of things, it suggests that a believer continues to exist in a disembodied state after death. This is what a "traditionalist" believes.

However, if taken as a first person narrative - a "what will be experienced by me when I die" account - it is entirely consistent with the following view: when a believer dies, their body is destroyed and they enter a state of consciouis non-existence (no "soul") until they are resurrected bodily and their "soul" re-appears.

Now to be fair to other parts of the 1 Cor passage, the following text might be more problematic to those who believe in a "no body means no soul" position:

If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked

This text suggests that if it were not for God's grace we could be found in a "naked" state without our bodes. This in turn implies that the body is not needed in order to experience conscious existence - a naked state does not sound like a "consciously non-existent" state. This supports the "traditional" view.

This argument has, I believe, been made by Free in the past. I hope to return to it in a future post.

For further explanation on 2 Corinthians 5:8, see this thread

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16964

Oscar, why I even waste breath on you is a mystery.

It is not I who has hung preconceived notions on one word. I have looked at all the words as well as all the contextual evidence. None of it supports 'thanatos' as being 'eternal conscious torment' or 'separation from the soul from the body'. The first completely contradicts the usage of 'death' both in the OT 'maveth' and the NT equivalent 'thanatos'. The second part that man has an immortal soul separate from the body cannot be proven at all from scriptures and is actually contradicted by scriptures.

 

[Oscar3]

Guibox
i think the problem that you have is that you try to often to implre greek mythology into the bible to make it fit your theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos

 

[guibox]

Guibox
i think the problem that you have is that you try to often to implre greek mythology into the bible to make it fit your theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos

oscar you are not making any sense. So by saying that 'thanatos' which comes from the Greek god of 'death', means 'death' when used in the scriptures, I am imposing that image onto the definition of 'thanatos'?? Please show me then from where exactly you derive the meaning of 'thanatos' to mean 'eternal conscious torment'?

Usually it is the other way around. The way the Greeks viewed and used certain terms doens't mean that you interpret the Bible's usage of it. Just because it was written in the Greek language doesn't mean that Greek mythology or concepts can be interpreted into it (like the Greek's use of 'soul' (psuche).

However, even in this case using the Greek mythology, Thanatos was the god of death not the god of eternal conscious torment. Whether I follow the exact Greek myth or just use the Greek word, 'eternal conscious torment' cannot be derived from either.

The lengths you are going to to call 'black/white' and completely ignore biblical context is staggering. How many excuses are you going to make to so desperately cling to your cherished beliefs even when you have no leg whatsoever to stand on?

 

[Oscar3]

Guibox
Can you provide me with a link or a definition and source for what you believe thantos to mean?

I am open for discussion

 

[jgredline]

Guibox
Normally I am not one to use commentaries, but I found these on the net..

Anyway here is what some theologians had to say...It made me feel good that it was very much in line with what I have been saying

Matt 25:26
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Mat 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life everlasting - Either therefore the punishment is strictly eternal, or the reward is not: the very same expression being applied to the former as to the latter. The Judge will speak first to the righteous, in the audience of the wicked. The wicked shall then go away into everlasting fire, in the view of the righteous. Thus the damned shall see nothing of the everlasting life; but the just will see the punishment of the ungodly. It is not only particularly observable here, That the punishment lasts as long as the reward; but, That this punishment is so far from ceasing at the end of the world, that it does not begin till then. Wesley

Mat 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment,.... Their excuses will not be regarded, their pleas will be of no avail, their pretensions to interest in Christ, and love to him, will be set aside; the sentence will remain irrevocable, and there will be no appeal from it, for there is no higher tribunal to bring the cause before; judgment having passed, the execution of it immediately follows: these goats, or formal professors, shall be obliged, whether they will or not, to depart from the presence of Christ; the angels will be ordered to take and cast them into everlasting burnings; they will be driven by them into hell, the place appointed for them; where they shall endure עונש נצחי "everlasting punishment", as the Jews (p) also express it; and that both in soul and body, as the just desert of sin; which being committed against an infinite God, cannot be satisfied for by a finite creature; who therefore must ever bear the punishment of it, because its pollution and guilt will always remain:

but the righteous into life eternal; such as are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and who, though they have done works of righteousness under the influence, and by the assistance of the grace of God, yet have not depended upon them, but upon Christ, for life and salvation: these shall go into heaven, the place appointed for them, to enjoy that eternal life in soul and body, which is the free gift of God, through Christ; and will be a life free from all the sorrows of the present one; a life of perfect holiness and knowledge, and inconceivable pleasure; a life of vision of God, and communion with him, and which will continue for ever; and which ascertains the eternity of the punishment of the wicked: for as the happiness of the righteous will be eternal, the punishment of the wicked will be so too; for no reason can be given why the word which is the same in both clauses, should be taken in the one for a limited time, and in the other for an eternal duration. The Jews have a saying (q) which agrees with this last clause, "the world to come is not made but for the righteous", Gill


Mat 25:46 -
And these shall go away  these “cursed†ones. Sentence, it should seem, was first pronounced - in the hearing of the wicked - upon the righteous, who thereupon sit as assessors in the judgment upon the wicked (1Co_6:2); but sentence is first executed, it should seem, upon the wicked, in the sight of the righteous - whose glory will thus not be beheld by the wicked, while their descent into “their own place†will be witnessed by the righteous, as Bengel notes.
into everlasting punishment  or, as in Mat_25:41, “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.†Compare Mat_13:42; 2Th_1:9, etc. This is said to be “prepared for the devil and his angels,†because they were “first in transgression.†But both have one doom, because one unholy character.
but the righteous into life eternal  that is, “life everlasting.†The word in both clauses, being in the original the same, should have been the same in the translation also. Thus the decisions of this awful day will be final, irreversible, unending. JFB



Mat 25:46 -
And these shall go away - These “persons.†Many, holding the doctrine of universal salvation have contended that God would punish sin only. Christ says that “those on his left hand,†shall go away - not “sins,†but “sinners.†Besides, sin, as an abstract thing, cannot be punished. Sin is nothing but an “act†- the act of a transgressor, and, to be reached at all, it must be reached by punishing the offender himself.
Into everlasting punishment - The original word translated here as “punishment†means torment, or suffering inflicted for crime. The noun is used but in one other place in the New Testament - 1Jo_4:18; “Fear hath ‘torment.’†The verb from which the noun is derived is twice used - Act_4:21; 2Pe_2:9. In all these places it denotes anguish, suffering, punishment. It does not mean simply a “state or condition,†but absolute, positive suffering; and if this word does not teach it, no word “could†express the idea that the wicked would suffer. It has been contended that the sufferings of the wicked will not be eternal or without end. It is not the purpose of these notes to enter into debates of that kind further than to ascertain the meaning of the language used by the sacred writers. In regard to the meaning of the word “everlasting†in this place, it is to be observed:
1. that the literal meaning of the word expresses absolute eternity - “always belong,†Mat_18:8; Mat_19:16; Mar_3:29; Rom_2:7; Heb_5:9.
2. that the obvious and plain interpretation of the word demands this signification in this place. The original word - αἰώνιον aionion - is employed in the New Testament 66 times. Of these, in 51 instances it is used of the happiness of the righteous; in two, of God’s existence; in six, of the church and the Messiah’s kingdom; and in the remaining seven, of the future punishment of the wicked. If in these seven instances we attach to the word the idea of limited duration, consistency requires that the same idea of limited duration should be given it in the 51 cases of its application to the future glory of the righteous, and the two instances of its application to God’s existence, and the six eases of its appropriation to the future reign of the Messiah and the glory and perpetuity of the church. But no one will presume to deny that in these instances it denotes unlimited duration, and therefore, in accordance with the sound laws of interpretation and of language itself, the same sense of unlimited duration must be given it when used of future punishment - Owen, in loc.
3. that, admitting that it was the Saviour’s design always to teach this doctrine, this would be “the very word†to express it; and if this does not teach it, it could not be taught.
4. that it is not taught in any plainer manner in any confession of faith on the globe; and if this may be explained away, all those may be.
5. that our Saviour knew that this would be so understood by nine-tenths of the world; and if he did not mean to teach it, he has knowingly led them into error, and his honesty cannot be vindicated.
6. that he knew that the doctrine was calculated to produce “fear and terror;†and if he was benevolent, and actually used language calculated to produce this fear and terror, his conduct cannot be vindicated in exciting unnecessary alarms.
7. that the word used here is the same in the original as that used to express the eternal life of the righteous; if one can be proved to be limited in duration, the other can by the same arguments. “The proof that the righteous will be happy forever is precisely the same, and no other, than that the wicked will, be miserable forever.â€Â
8. that it is confirmed by many other passages of Scripture, 2Th_1:7-9; Luk_16:26; Rev_14:11; Psa_9:17; Isa_33:14; Mar_16:16; Joh_3:36.
Life eternal - Man by sin has plunged himself into death, temporal, spiritual, eternal. Christ, by coming and dying, has abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light, 2Ti_1:10. “Life†is the opposite of death. It denotes, here, freedom from death, and positive holiness and happiness forever. Barnes


G2851
κόλασις
kolasis
kol'-as-is
From G2849; penal infliction: - punishment, torment.

46 And2532 these3778 shall go away565 into1519 everlasting166 punishment:2851 but1161 the3588 righteous1342 into1519 life2222 eternal.166

Guibox
I don't know what more I can say... All these theologians are basically saying the very same thing as I. Infact, I presented a better commentary than these folks.......

Guys can't even blame paul for this one. It was Jesus who said it >>>>>>

 

[guibox]

Guibox
Can you provide me with a link or a definition and source for what you believe thantos to mean?

I am open for discussion

I just found this link. It explains well the term 'thanatos'.

http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/Deat ... Death.html
'thanatos' means 'death'. It is the only word used in the NT to denote 'death'. There is no indication whatsoever from the physical use of 'thanatos' to denote 'separation from the soul of the body' it means 'absence of life'. 'thanatos' is opposite life not a continuation of it.

Death as used in the NT both 'maveth' and it's NT equivalent 'thanatos' are always used to mean 'cessation of life'.

It would incredibly strange for 'thanatos' to be translated as 'death' in 80 percent of its uses, but when applying to the afterlife, be completely translated as opposite to mean eternal torment. This is strange for two reasons:

1) Nowhere has the wicked put on immortality from the first death to the second death, hence, thanatos would still have the same application

2) Nowhere in the context of the verses of the use of 'thanatos' are we given any indication that 'thanatos' still doesn't mean 'death' never mind to mean 'eternal conscious torment'

To read 'thanatos' to mean 'eternal separation from the soul to the body' is to completely read into it an unproven assumption that cannot be supported by scripture or by the nature of the word when it is used as the only word to denote 'death'

As biblical scholar Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi notes:

The figurative meanings of the word thanatos–death depend entirely on the literal meaning as cessation of life. To argue for the conscious existence of the soul on the basis of figurative meaning of death is to attribute to the word a meaning which is foreign to it. This runs contrary to literary and grammatical rules and destroys the connections among physical, spiritual, and eternal death.

oscar and jg, just humor me and take some time to read these chapters on the matter.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... tion/4.htm

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... tion/6.htm

 

[LoverOfGod]

LUKE 16:22–28
Because this passage so obviously supports the idea of conscious existence after deathâ€â€as well as conscious suffering for the wicked following deathâ€â€the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th day adventist and other cults go to great lengths to reinterpret it.

They argue that “the rich man represents the religious leaders who are favored with spiritual privileges and opportunities, and Lazarus pictures the common people who hunger for spiritual nourishment.â€Â

They say that “since the rich man and Lazarus are not literal persons but symbolize classes of people, logically their deaths are also symbolic.†Their “deaths†symbolize dying to their former circumstances. In God’s program, the “repentant Lazarus class dies to their former spiritually deprived condition and come into a position of divine favor.â€Â

By contrast, “those who make up the rich-man class come under divine disfavor because of persistently refusing to accept the kingdom message taught by Jesus.†The “torment†referred to in this passage is the pain caused on evil people by the righteous message of Jesus and his disciples.


If people at death simply lapse into a state of unconsciousness, then Jesus’ comments in this passage lose their meaning. The elaborate reinterpretation offered by the Watchtower Society and other cukts completely crosses the boundary of credulity.

Scholars have noted that whenever Jesus taught, he provided examples from real-life situations. For example, he spoke of a treasure buried in a field, a wedding feast, a man working in a vineyard, a woman sweeping her house, a shepherd watching his sheep, and a son returning home after squandering money.

Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood. This being the case, we must conclude that in Luke 16 Jesus is giving a teaching based on a “real-life†situationâ€â€involving conscious existence after death. Certainly the verse is in perfect harmony with other verses that teach conscious existence in the afterlife (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Phil. 1:21–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Rev. 6:9–10).

Jesus never calls this real story a “parable,†and unlike parables, which never use real names, Jesus used a real name (Lazarus) of a person.


Any Comments and I will gladly accept Amens.

SOUL AND SPIRIT
A Revelational Definition

What is a Soul? A Soul is a presence of energy that sits in the core of our bodies, and stores information about us. All of our memories and information on our physical characteristics, including our appearance, are stored in our soul. We are given a soul prior to our birth. Our soul and our spirit are one in the same. The Holy Spirit comes later, and its purpose is to link us to God.

Upon our death, the Holy Spirit leaves us, but our soul is what we are, our living spirit. Our soul is what is taken to Heaven by Angels of The Lord. When our soul gets to heaven, it manifests into a physical body from the information that is stored in it concerning our appearance. It is not a human body but appears human in every way. It is just a physical manifestation of our being that allows us to interact with each other during our Heavenly stay. Without the physical manifestation, our souls would be invisible energy fields. Also, upon or death, the Holy Spirit leaves us and stays on the Earth. When a soul goes to hell, it also manifests into the physical, but it is a manifestation of death. In that case, the manifestation is of a skeletal appearance, whose flesh will grow, only to burn off.

 

[CP_Mike]

SOUL AND SPIRIT
A Revelational Definition

What is a Soul? A Soul is a presence of energy that sits in the core of our bodies, and stores information about us. All of our memories and information on our physical characteristics, including our appearance, are stored in our soul. We are given a soul prior to our birth. Our soul and our spirit are one in the same. The Holy Spirit comes later, and its purpose is to link us to God.

Upon our death, the Holy Spirit leaves us, but our soul is what we are, our living spirit. Our soul is what is taken to Heaven by Angels of The Lord. When our soul gets to heaven, it manifests into a physical body from the information that is stored in it concerning our appearance. It is not a human body but appears human in every way. It is just a physical manifestation of our being that allows us to interact with each other during our Heavenly stay. Without the physical manifestation, our souls would be invisible energy fields. Also, upon or death, the Holy Spirit leaves us and stays on the Earth. When a soul goes to hell, it also manifests into the physical, but it is a manifestation of death. In that case, the manifestation is of a skeletal appearance, whose flesh will grow, only to burn off.

Unfortunately, not a biblical view of 'Nephesh'. Soul and spirit are not the same:

Here are some pointers:

Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.
'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit
This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-
• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.

 

[LoverOfGod]

Unfortunately, not a biblical view of 'Nephesh'. Soul and spirit are not the same:

Here are some pointers:

Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.
'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit
This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-
• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.

Unfortunately? Maybe not biblical, but true. From the mouth of the Father.

 

[CP_Mike]

Unfortunately? Maybe not biblical, but true. From the mouth of the Father.

Sorry, but what you posted contradicts what 'soul' means in the bible. Father never does that!

 

[Solo]

Sorry, but what you posted contradicts what 'soul' means in the bible. Father never does that!

Sorry, but what you post concerning the soul, spirit, and body are false, and are not backed by the Word of God. God has given his children the understanding of the makeup of man. Perhaps one day you too will know.

 

[Drew]

At the end of the day, the view that we possess immaterial souls and spirits can, of course, be read into the Scriptures and, in a sense, be made to work. The price for such a force-fit is heavy: incoherence and a wildly implausible theological system in which "destroy" means "eternal torment" and millions of disembodied souls are apparently crammed under an altar, etc.

I think that the correct view is that the writers of scripture never believed in immortal souls and, when they are resurrected, will be amused that so many read greek dualist ideas into scriptures that sprang out of a Hebrew culture.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
Define dualistic Greek ideas for me..

 

[Drew]

Drew
Define dualistic Greek ideas for me..

In this context, it is the idea that the human person is made up of 2 different kinds of "stuff" - physical stuff and "mental" or non-physical stuff. This belief is so deeply ingrained in western thinking that many seem unable to even imagine that it is not correct. Some even believe that it is true by necessity.

 

[jgredline]

In this context, it is the idea that the human person is made up of 2 different kinds of "stuff" - physical stuff and "mental" or non-physical stuff. This belief is so deeply ingrained in western thinking that many seem unable to even imagine that it is not correct. Some even believe that it is true by necessity.

So Drew.
In the theological world there are three basic make-ups
Trichotomy, Dichotomy, and Monism....I am guessing that by your responses you hold to the Monism view, correct ?....and that the Dichotomy view is Greek duelism...and so I am guessing the Trichotomy view is a Tryism (if there is such a word)...Am I on track so far? If not please correct me.....

 

[Drew]

So Drew.
In the theological world there are three basic make-ups
Trichotomy, Dichotomy, and Monism....I am guessing that by your responses you hold to the Monism view, correct ?....and that the Dichotomy view is Greek duelism...and so I am guessing the Trichotomy view is a Tryism (if there is such a word)...Am I on track so far? If not please correct me.....

I would have to know more about what those terms mean. But you should not assume that a "monistic" view about the nature of the human person implies a "monstic" view about the nature of reality in the more general sense. I think we have been down this road before.

All I (and others I think) are saying is that the human person is not decomposable into components that can exist apart from each other.

 

[Dave...]

"Death

We teach that physical death involves no loss of our immaterial consciousness (Revelation 6:9-11), that there is a separation of soul and body (James 2:26), that the soul of the redeemed passes immediately into the presence of Christ (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23), and that, for the redeemed, such separation will continue until the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) which initiated the first resurrection (Revelation 20:4-6), when our soul and body will be reunited to be glorified forever with our Lord (1 Corinthians 15:35-44, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54; Philippians 3:21). Until that time, the souls of the redeemed in Christ remain in joyful fellowship with our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:8).

We teach the bodily resurrection of all men, the saved to eternal life (John 6:39; Romans 8:10-11, Romans 8:19-23;2 Corinthians 4:14), and the unsaved to judgement and everlasting punishment (Daniel 12:2; John 5:29; Revelation 20:13-15).

We teach that the souls of the unsaved at death are kept under punishment until the second resurrection (Luke 16:19-26; Revelation 20:13-15), when the soul and the resurrection body will be united (John 5:28-29). They shall then appear at the Great White Thrown judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) and shall be cast into hell, the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41-46), cut off from the of God forever (Daniel 12:2; Matthew 25:41-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)." Macarthur.

two cents :-D