The Trichotomous and Dichotomous View

[eddif]

Hebrews 13:9 kjv
9. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
10. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
11. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
12. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach
14. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
15. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

The strength is IMHO is a higher level strength than that of the old covenant.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[PeterJens]

This is where I begin to establish that the Lord is Salvation in order answer that question of our souls in Matthew 16:24-27 and John 12:25-26. @#33 and @#34.

“Assemble yourselves that I may tell you what will befall you in the days to come. Gather together and hear, O sons of Jacob; And listen to Israel your father.”

This is the first time in the Scriptures that salvation by God is made direct reference to.

The Hebrew says לִֽישׁוּעָתְךָ֖ קִוִּ֥יתִי יְהוָֽה׃ Gen 49:18

לִֽישׁוּעָתְךָ֖ קִוִּ֥יתִי יְהוָֽה׃ (v18)

(v18) I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.

The word ישׁוּעָתְ is used in speaking of God’s deliverance.

yeshu’sh (יְשׁוּעָה) or יְשׁוּעָה (yâshuwʿah) from yasha (יָשַׁע,)

This same deliverance of God is used in other passages of Scripture, but here in this verse, this is the first time the word is used. It is the same in meaning as God is my deliverer. The Hebrew word ישׁוּעָתְ, employed in Exodus 17:9 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ בְּחַר־לָ֣נוּ, is translated, Joshua. The Greek name Iesous (Ιησου̂ς) [Jesus] is a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Joshua, meaning, Jehovah is salvation. Literally, Saviour.

As it is written, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”(Matthew 1:21 NASB).

“Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, According to Your word; For my eyes have seen Your salvation, Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples. (Luke 2:29-31 NASB)

I used to think of salvation as many parts - and only when I realised that salvation is Christ - that the many things finally took a proper submission to Christ and I finally settled down to working out my own salvation with fear and trembling - realising that not only did I have to have Christ at the forefront of my mind - but all that which proceeds from Him also. In that meaning the Christian walk stops being a doctrinal issue - other than the doctrines of life - and becomes a matter of obedience. Its obvious no doubt to all who are born again - And yet somehow we so often fail to hold onto Christ and then we are in the flesh - and what transpires then is a matter of who we are in the flesh in our own lives. As I used to say to my more sensitive brethren - if they were in the flesh they may simply neglect to hold the door for me - and if I am in the flesh I will slam it in their face. Naturally after such an abrupt lesson I find myself holding the door for an entire discharge from the church. Its worth persevering with a little theatre and worth much more to convince your brethren that if we seek to understand the flesh and the meaning of the cross unto death daily - we will not find its meaning by digging into the flesh itself. We must go after Christ with all our hearts.



I wonder, brother if you could explain this part of your post @#30. Thank you.

Gnostic theology puts emphasis on the spiritual part of life as being eternal, pure and holy, while the things of the flesh are corrupting and evil. In this theology, man is set free from evil at death because the corrupting body dies and the spirit is set free.

Add to this view the idea the unbelievers do not have a spirit, but when they are born again, they gain an eternal holy perfect spirit, who is the real them. With this view, everything evil is blamed on the flesh, and everything good to the spirit. They regard folk who suggest we are the whole, body, spirit, soul as evil liars and deceivers who believe you can earn your way to heaven. Good works or love from the heart do not exist, only acts of the spirit, good, acts of the flesh evil. There walk is then trying to discern a morality based on acts of the spirit, which by its nature is 100% subjective. They hate repentance and commitment to doing righteous acts, because to them both are impossible.

I had long interactions were they wanted me to accept faith was just knowing Jesus saved us and took the penalty for sin, so any sin we do is not sin anymore, just works of the flesh which have been forgiven. For me it was a schizophrenic faith that pited one part of someones personality against another, but which 100% described the life of the addict. Its not me doing the drug, its my addiction, I am the innocent victim etc.

So destructive was this view, to talk about love and walking like Jesus had no weight, as in their view to know Jesus's walk was just to create guilt to make you accept Jesus alone can save you. But the salvation is not transformation, it is just this gnostic spirit that is the eternal you that will be free at death. It was shocking to me how many believers, maybe 50% on some forums agreed with this view. Some strong calvanist positions are not that far off this extreem.

I hope this helps, God bless you

 

[rhomphaeam]

Gnostic theology puts emphasis on the spiritual part of life as being eternal, pure and holy, while the things of the flesh are corrupting and evil. In this theology, man is set free from evil at death because the corrupting body dies and the spirit is set free.

Add to this view the idea the unbelievers do not have a spirit, but when they are born again, they gain an eternal holy perfect spirit, who is the real them. With this view, everything evil is blamed on the flesh, and everything good to the spirit. They regard folk who suggest we are the whole, body, spirit, soul as evil liars and deceivers who believe you can earn your way to heaven. Good works or love from the heart do not exist, only acts of the spirit, good, acts of the flesh evil. There walk is then trying to discern a morality based on acts of the spirit, which by its nature is 100% subjective. They hate repentance and commitment to doing righteous acts, because to them both are impossible.

I had long interactions were they wanted me to accept faith was just knowing Jesus saved us and took the penalty for sin, so any sin we do is not sin anymore, just works of the flesh which have been forgiven. For me it was a schizophrenic faith that pited one part of someones personality against another, but which 100% described the life of the addict. Its not me doing the drug, its my addiction, I am the innocent victim etc.

So destructive was this view, to talk about love and walking like Jesus had no weight, as in their view to know Jesus's walk was just to create guilt to make you accept Jesus alone can save you. But the salvation is not transformation, it is just this gnostic spirit that is the eternal you that will be free at death. It was shocking to me how many believers, maybe 50% on some forums agreed with this view. Some strong calvanist positions are not that far off this extreem.

I hope this helps, God bless you

Before I respond to that, brother, may I ask who were these with whom you had long interactions?

I also quoted your last paragraph and that alludes to a neurological and neuropsychological frame of reference. Why do you draw that meaning out? What you said amounts to a neurophysiological reference but in psychiatry would predicate to a psychological meaning and more than likely to a neural plasticity meaning.

 

[eddif]

positions are not that far off this extreem.

Ecclesiastes 7:17 kjv
17. Do not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time?
18. It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.

Extremes can be dangerous.
Being Lukewarm is dangerous.

Seeing through a glass darkly is a state of being we are in.

Being aware of being (a wretched man) seems somehow not a bad condition.

We do not know it all. We struggle with truth, but are passionate in the pursuit.

I am not sure I made the point I wanted to make.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Butch5]

Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ

The Usage of Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ in Greek Writings and Translated Works from the Earliest Period to 225 A.D.; and of their Equivalents %ֶחַ, נֶ֣פMר and ָרlָ< in the Hebrew Old Testament.

I. Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, AND Σάρξ IN GREEK WRITERS FROM HOMER TO ARISTOTLE
II. %ֶחַ, נֶ֣פMר AND ָרlָ< IN THE Old Testament
III. Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, AND Σάρξ IN GREEK WRITERS FROM EPICURUS TO
ARIUS DIDYMUS
IV. Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, AND Σάρξ IN GREEK WRITERS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIOD
V. Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, AND Σάρξ IN JEWISH-GREEK LITERATURE
VI. Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, AND Σάρξ IN ETHNIC RELIGIOUS WRITINGS APPROXIMATELY CONTEMPORARY WITH THE New Testament
VII.Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, AND Σάρξ IN THE New Testament

Burton, E. D. W. (1918). Spirit, soul, and flesh. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Professor and Head of the Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago.

“These things afore written had been and that a great deal more than sufficient: nevertheless that thou mayst be somewhat more sensibly known unto thyself, I will rehearse compendiously the division of a man, after the description of Origene, for he followeth Paul making three parts, the spirit, the soul and the flesh, which three parts Paul joined together, writing to the Thessalonieences. That your spirit (saith he) your soul and your body may be kept clean and uncorrupt, that ye be not blamed or accused at the coming of our Lord Jesu Christ. And Esaias (leaving out the lowest part) maketh mention of two, saying, My soul shall desire and long for thee in the night, yea, and in my spirit and my heart strings I will wake in the mornings for to please thee. Also Daniel saith, Let the spirits and souls of good men laud God. Out of the which places of scripture Origene gathereth not against reason the three partitions of man, that is to wit, the body, otherwise called the flesh, the most vile part of us, wherein the malicious serpent through original trespass hath I written the law of sin, wherewithal we be provoked to filthiness. And also if we be overcome, we be coupled and made one with the devil. Then the spirit wherein we represent the similitude of the nature of God, in which also our most blessed maker after the original pattern and example of his own mind hath graven the eternal law of honesty with his finger, that is, with his spirit the Holy Ghost. By this part we be knit to God, and made one with him. In the third place, and in the midst between these two he putteth the soul, which is partaker of the sensible wits and natural motions.”

Erasmus, D. (1905). Enchiridion Militis Christiani (pp. 104–106). London: Methuen & Co.

I have to disagree with your conclusion that man is trichotomous or dichotomous. You quoted Gen 2:7 to make your point, however, I don't believe Gen 2:7 supports your point.

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. (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

The passage says that man is dust. Man consists of the elements of the earth. The passage then tells us that God breathed something out of Himself and into the man. What He breathed was the breath or spirit of life. That is something of God, not man. The passage then tells us that when the breath of life from God went into the man, the man became something else. He became a living soul. We can see from this passages that soul consists of two things, a man and the breath of life from God. These are not three parts of a man. There is soul, a living being, it consists of two things, God's breath or spirit and a man. If we take away either the breath or spirit of God or the man, we no longer have a living soul. The soul would cease to exist. The breath or spirit is something of God, it's not man. Job said that if God were to retrieve His spirit and his breath, all flesh would die and man would return to the dust.

If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. (Job 34:14-15 KJV)

Notice in this passage, it doesn't say, part of man will return to the dust, it says man will return to the dust. It is God's breath or spirit of life that animates the man.

"But it is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding. (Job 32:8 NAS)

Notice here that Job speaks of a spirit in man. That is the breath or spirit of life from God. It's that breath that gives man understanding. Man is not a spirit. It is God's spirit. From this I conclude a monist view of man.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I have to disagree with your conclusion that man is trichotomous or dichotomous. You quoted Gen 2:7 to make your point, however, I don't believe Gen 2:7 supports your point.

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. (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

The passage says that man is dust. Man consists of the elements of the earth. The passage then tells us that God breathed something out of Himself and into the man. What He breathed was the breath or spirit of life. That is something of God, not man. The passage then tells us that when the breath of life from God went into the man, the man became something else. He became a living soul. We can see from this passages that soul consists of two things, a man and the breath of life from God. These are not three parts of a man. There is soul, a living being, it consists of two things, God's breath or spirit and a man. If we take away either the breath or spirit of God or the man, we no longer have a living soul. The soul would cease to exist. The breath or spirit is something of God, it's not man. Job said that if God were to retrieve His spirit and his breath, all flesh would die and man would return to the dust.

If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. (Job 34:14-15 KJV)

Notice in this passage, it doesn't say, part of man will return to the dust, it says man will return to the dust. It is God's breath or spirit of life that animates the man.

"But it is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding. (Job 32:8 NAS)

Notice here that Job speaks of a spirit in man. That is the breath or spirit of life from God. It's that breath that gives man understanding. Man is not a spirit. It is God's spirit. From this I conclude a monist view of man.

Well I did post at #33

One thing that stands out in the comments in this OP is just how the Hebrew and the Greek linguistic argument can come across very differently from one another. When parsing a Greek meaning such as this one here Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ it is very difficult to resist a trichotomous view of the constitution of man as claimed in Genesis 2:7. And yet as we have seen when parsing a Greek text such as Mark 12:30 as in post #21 in this OP it is difficult not to sense that there is a unified sense of man being expressed and a bipartite sense of his being. I found this to be the same in 1985/6 when I first had a need to begin to study Hebrew and Greek. What I found then was a sense that the key to understanding this seeming distinction between a trichotomous and dichotomous position could be better settled when understood in terms of what the New Testament presented as to what is meant by being saved.

The Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ article expresses a New Testament view because it is based on John 3:5-8. And the foundational premise is based on Genesis 2:7 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.

The monist view is essentially found in Buddhism and Hinduism. Unless you favour Spinoza?

So what is being born again in your view - bearing in mind that the Scripture says that that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit?

 

[Butch5]

Well I did post at #33

One thing that stands out in the comments in this OP is just how the Hebrew and the Greek linguistic argument can come across very differently from one another. When parsing a Greek meaning such as this one here Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ it is very difficult to resist a trichotomous view of the constitution of man as claimed in Genesis 2:7. And yet as we have seen when parsing a Greek text such as Mark 12:30 as in post #21 in this OP it is difficult not to sense that there is a unified sense of man being expressed and a bipartite sense of his being. I found this to be the same in 1985/6 when I first had a need to begin to study Hebrew and Greek. What I found then was a sense that the key to understanding this seeming distinction between a trichotomous and dichotomous position could be better settled when understood in terms of what the New Testament presented as to what is meant by being saved.

The Πνεῦμα, Ψυχή, and Σάρξ article expresses a New Testament view because it is based on John 3:5-8. And the foundational premise is based on Genesis 2:7 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.

The monist view is essentially found in Buddhism and Hinduism. Unless you favour Spinoza?

So what is being born again in your view - bearing in mind that the Scripture says that that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit?

I would submit that being born again is resurrection. I would submit that Resurrection is being born of the Spirit. Paul spoke of this in Romans 8

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom. 8:11 KJV)

Here Paul says that God will raise up the believer by His spirit that is in them. This would literally be being born again. Being brought to life a second time via God's Spirit.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I would submit that being born again is resurrection. I would submit that Resurrection is being born of the Spirit. Paul spoke of this in Romans 8

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom. 8:11 KJV)

Here Paul says that God will raise up the believer by His spirit that is in them. This would literally be being born again. Being brought to life a second time via God's Spirit.

The issue was a matter of monism or not monism - so how can implying a physical resurrection equate to being born again? Are you already resurrected in bodily form, as Christ was? Paul was writing in the active present tense in possession of life - and so you believe that your mortal body is born again?

 

[Butch5]

The issue was a matter of monism or not monism - so how can implying a physical resurrection equate to being born again? Are you already resurrected in bodily form, as Christ was? Paul was writing in the active present tense in possession of life - and so you believe that your mortal body is born again?

No, I'm not resurrected.

 

[rhomphaeam]

No, I'm not resurrected.

Then how do you answer the Lord that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven or see the kingdom of heaven or see God? You appear to believe that being born again is predicated to a unitary meaning which you call monism and in a semblance of meaning is equated with the body as the outward expression of its meaning. I am trying to understand what you have said beyond the claim to monism and citing Romans 8:11. Is there a name for this doctrine? It sounds like a form of apotheosis to me!

 

[Butch5]

The issue was a matter of monism or not monism - so how can implying a physical resurrection equate to being born again? Are you already resurrected in bodily form, as Christ was? Paul was writing in the active present tense in possession of life - and so you believe that your mortal body is born again?

The phrase born again is actually only used of the Jews. Gentiles are said to be born of God. I believe it's a figurative way to speak of the resurrection.

Shall raise is in the future tense.

 

[rhomphaeam]

The phrase born again is actually only used of the Jews. Gentiles are said to be born of God. I believe it's a figurative way to speak of the resurrection.

Shall raise is in the future tense.

Indeed - shall raise is in future tense but life to your mortal bodies is present indicative possessive. So Paul was speaking as a present reality and not simply implying a future meaning - shall raise.

 

[Butch5]

Then how do you answer the Lord that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven or see the kingdom of heaven or see God? You appear to believe that being born again is predicated to a unitary meaning which you call monism and in a semblance of meaning is equated with the body as the outward expression of its meaning. I am trying to understand what you have said beyond the claim to monism and citing Romans 8:11. Is there a name for this doctrine? It sounds like a form of apotheosis to me!

I simply believe that man is a single physical being that is given life by the breath or spirit of God. I don't believe he is two or three parts as many submit. His only way to enter the kingdom after death is to be resurrected.

 

[Butch5]

Indeed - shall raise is in future tense but life to your mortal bodies is present indicative possessive. So Paul was speaking as a present reality and not simply implying a future meaning - shall raise.

I have to disagree with you here. I believe shall raise you mortal bodies is future tense, while the spirit that dwells in them is present active.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I simply believe that man is a single physical being that is given life by the breath or spirit of God. I don't believe he is two or three parts as many submit. His only way to enter the kingdom after death is to be resurrected.

Yes of course I understand that claim. I am curious where you came by the teaching. I have never heard of a monist meaning other than in Buddhism and Hinduism and philosophically of Spinoza. As to the grammatical rule issue I am happy to yield. So how does the Spirit that dwells in them - not equate to being God indwelling the man who is not yet born again by possessing the life of God - though being a temple of God?

 

[Butch5]

Yes of course I understand that claim. I am curious where you came by the teaching. I have never heard of a monist meaning other than in Buddhism and Hinduism and philosophically of Spinoza. As to the grammatical rule issue I am happy to yield. So how does the Spirit that dwells in them - not equate to being God indwelling the man who is not yet born again by possessing the life of God - though being a temple of God?

I belong to a group of men and women who do a lot of in depth study. We use a historical/grammatical hermeneutic to look at the Scriptures. We trace concepts all through the Scriptures. Sometimes that means look at every single occurrence of a word in Scripture. for instance, in the study, "What is a Man?", we traced the words, body, soul, and spirit, through the entire Bible. There were hundreds of passages that were looked at to get the sense of the words and their use in Scripture. But, there are others also.

I'm not sure what you're asking regarding God indwelling them.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I belong to a group of men and women who do a lot of in depth study. We use a historical/grammatical hermeneutic to look at the Scriptures. We trace concepts all through the Scriptures. Sometimes that means look at every single occurrence of a word in Scripture. for instance, in the study, "What is a Man?", we traced the words, body, soul, and spirit, through the entire Bible. There were hundreds of passages that were looked at to get the sense of the words and their use in Scripture. But, there are others also.

I'm not sure what you're asking regarding God indwelling them.

I have over five thousand books in my library and over half of them are now in Libronix format so I can search for any word in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Chaldean, and Syriac in just two minuets flat and then go through every grammatical lemma - every manuscript extant - every semitic and domain implicit root across all languages in the library - so these days it is a simple matter to derive usage and semantic domains of the Scripture. How can that of itself prove anything unless you can present a linguistic exegesis in a form of parsing that proves meaning? If you have arrived at a monist view in defiance of a thousand libraries across Europe in vaults and corridors of learning - how can you not tell me just one thing? What is the name of this doctrine you espouse?

As to what you say I am asking. Perhaps if I say this - what use is faith into Christ if faith produces no more than learning and eternal life is only ours in resurrection. You said previously when you corrected my grammar thus:

"I have to disagree with you here. I believe shall raise you mortal bodies is future tense, while the spirit that dwells in them is present active."

So how then can my asking about the present possession of the Holy Spirit that makes the body a temple of the Holy Spirit be a cause of confusion? What good this monist view if we are to wait until we are resurrected to have life eternal? I would rather get drunk within the Halls of Valhalla and meet Thor rather quicker. Of course that is just me saying it to make a point. But please - is it not possible to express this monist view more linguistically so that we can all understand the learning of your group? I know - we all know - many decent and learned people - but I would rather fellowship with one born again brother than an entire school of academics. Its just a reality that comes from being born again.

 

[Butch5]

I have over five thousand books in my library and over half of them are now in Libronix format so I can search for any word in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Chaldean, and Syriac in just two minuets flat and then go through every grammatical lemma - every manuscript extant - every semitic and domain implicit root across all languages in the library - so these days it is a simple matter to derive usage and semantic domains of the Scripture. How can that of itself prove anything unless you can present a linguistic exegesis in a form of parsing that proves meaning? If you have arrived at a monist view in defiance of a thousand libraries across Europe in vaults and corridors of learning - how can you not tell me just one thing? What is the name of this doctrine you espouse?

It's simply an understanding of the Scriptures, just like trichotomy or dichotomy. There's no name that I'm aware of.

As to what you say I am asking. Perhaps if I say this - what use is faith into Christ if faith produces no more than learning and eternal life is only present in resurrection. You said previously when you corrected my grammar thus:

"I have to disagree with you here. I believe shall raise you mortal bodies is future tense, while the spirit that dwells in them is present active."

So how then can my asking about the present possession of the Holy Spirit that makes the body a temple of the Holy Spirit be a cause of confusion. What good this monist view if we are to wait until we are resurrected to have life eternal? I would rather get drunk within the Halls of Valhalla and meet Thor rather quicker. Of course that is just me saying it to make a point. But please - is it not possible to express this monist view more linguistically so that we can all understand the learning of your group? I know - we all know - many decent and learned people - but I would rather fellowship with one born again brother than an entire school of academics. Its just a reality that comes from being born again.

I would ask, what do you believe eternal life is? Is it not living eternally? If we had eternal life now we would never die. Yet, we know Christians die. I would ask how can one have eternal life now when Jesus said it was to come in the coming age?

"who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time-- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions-- and in the age to come, eternal life. (Mk. 10:30 NKJ)

You asked, what good is this monist view if we have to wait until the Resurrection to have eternal life? I get the impression from this that you believe eternal life is something other than simply living eternally, is that correct?

I'm not sure what else you'd like me to say about my view. As I said, I simply believe man is a physical being that is animated by God's breath/spirit. I take the description in Gen 2:7 literally. That lines up with the rest of Scripture.

I can tell you one thing about a monist view, it makes understanding Scripture immensely easier. So much becomes so clear. I don't have to change the meaning of words to fit what I believe. For instance, may say that suffering eternal conscious torment is the second death. How exactly is being alive, death?

One thing I would ask of those who hold the trichotomy view is, where does this spirit, that is man, come from? I mean where do we see it in Scripture? In Gen 2:7 we see God's breath being put in man. Where do we see man being put in man?

 

[rhomphaeam]

It's simply an understanding of the Scriptures, just like trichotomy or dichotomy. There's no name that I'm aware of.

I would ask, what do you believe eternal life is? Is it not living eternally? If we had eternal life now we would never die. Yet, we know Christians die. I would ask how can one have eternal life now when Jesus said it was to come in the coming age?

"who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time-- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions-- and in the age to come, eternal life. (Mk. 10:30 NKJ)

You asked, what good is this monist view if we have to wait until the Resurrection to have eternal life? I get the impression from this that you believe eternal life is something other than simply living eternally, is that correct?

I'm not sure what else you'd like me to say about my view. As I said, I simply believe man is a physical being that is animated by God's breath/spirit. I take the description in Gen 2:7 literally. That lines up with the rest of Scripture.

I can tell you one thing about a monist view, it makes understanding Scripture immensely easier. So much becomes so clear. I don't have to change the meaning of words to fit what I believe. For instance, may say that suffering eternal conscious torment is the second death. How exactly is being alive, death?

One thing I would ask of those who hold the trichotomy view is, where does this spirit, that is man, come from? I mean where do we see it in Scripture? In Gen 2:7 we see God's breath being put in man. Where do we see man being put in man?

Those points provoke many responses but for now I must go to sleep as it is just after 02:00hrs in the UK and I have to be bright and lively by 07:00hrs. Until tomorrow then. God Bless.

 

[DancesWithGnostics]

Ecc 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Obviously God gives it.

1Jo 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Wouldn't we assume that there are non-murderers who have eternal life abiding in them?