What do you think?

[guibox]

The correct form is 'you're' by the way. And whether I'm wrong, you have not, nor cannot prove by the context, proof text, overall message and scope or linguistics of the bible. In fact, the bible is against your view, plain and simple. Whether you want to argue it from a Greek mindset that is foreign to the scriptures doesn't change that simple truth.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree but I hope you understand that it is not as clear cut and dried as you think. you are choosing to close your mind to the possibility that you may indeed be wrong. It is unfortunate that despite all this evidence and support you choose to remain steadfast in your one track thinking without considering the evidence or acknowledging the reality of these things.

That is the saddest part of it all.

Many thousands before you have examined the evidence and found merit enough to change their opinions. Luther and Tyndale did as did many of their contemporaries. Many scholars from all different faiths who's job it is to exegete the scriptures are too. They realized that the way the Catholic Church ingrained these false beliefs in us are foreign to the scriptures and are not Christian in belief, nor were they promoted or supported by the writings of the apostles.

If the clear teaching of the scriptures cannot change your mind, there is nothing I can say about it anymore.

 

[Drew]

Hello Stranger:

I hope that you do not take offence if I say that I have difficulty in understanding what your argument is.

I hold to the view that man is "wholistic" - not decomposable into a body "part" and an "immortal soul / spirit that can bear consciousness apart from the body" part. Such a view is not conceptually incoherent and I believe that the Scriptures support it.

From my perspective, I see you as focusing on the "spirit vs flesh" distinction and improperly mapping this distinction onto the "anthropology" of the human person. I see these as entirely distinct issues.

A person can believe in the wholism of the human person and still believe that man partakes of one of two "natures" - a wholistic person can either be acting in accordance with the Spirit or in accordance with the flesh. To act in the Spirit is to act in accordance with the new creature that you have become, to act in the flesh is to act in accordance with the desires of the fallen self. I suspect that we agree that even a Christian can choose to act according to the "old self" if he wants to.

But the fact that we can operate in one of these two "modes" does not, in and of itself, justify any conclusion that we are fundamentally made up of a "flesh part" and a "spirit part". To make this conclusion is to make a category error.

I suspect you believe that I ascribe to the garden variety "nobody here but us atoms" kind of physicalism - that I deny the reality of the spiritual world. I do not deny it at all. I simply believe that human beings are of one "substance" - one cannot extract a consciousness bearing soul from a "physical" body that it "lives inside". I think that spiritual forces are real and that human beings are influenced by them. But its not a situation where spiritual forces interact only with my "soul" part.

There is nothing conceptually wrong at all with this. I almost think that you believe that the reality of the "flesh" vs "spirit" distinction logically requires that we have one component that reacts to the power of the Spirit and an entirely distinct component that acts in accordance with the "flesh". Is this, in fact, what you believe?

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:

I hold to the view that man is "wholistic" - not decomposable into a body "part" and an "immortal soul / spirit that can bear consciousness apart from the body" part. Such a view is not conceptually incoherent and I believe that the Scriptures support it.

The words 'mortal or immortal soul' do not feature in my arguments at all - so when you respond to my posts - you need not assume that they are what I intend. These words are not a construct in my anthropology.

From my perspective, I see you as focusing on the "spirit vs flesh" distinction and improperly mapping this distinction onto the "anthropology" of the human person. I see these as entirely distinct issues.

Yes I do map Spirit and flesh with nature because they are nature outside of which is no nature (excepting total demonic possession). The distinction becomes apparent: 'by their fruits you will know them'.

A person can believe in the wholism of the human person and still believe that man partakes of one of two "natures" - a wholistic person can either be acting in accordance with the Spirit or in accordance with the flesh. To act in the Spirit is to act in accordance with the new creature that you have become, to act in the flesh is to act in accordance with the desires of the fallen self. I suspect that we agree that even a Christian can choose to act according to the "old self" if he wants to.

Yes.

But the fact that we can operate in one of these two "modes" does not, in and of itself, justify any conclusion that we are fundamentally made up of a "flesh part" and a "spirit part". To make this conclusion is to make a category error.

I don't think in terms of these parts.

I suspect you believe that I ascribe to the garden variety "nobody here but us atoms" kind of physicalism - that I deny the reality of the spiritual world. I do not deny it at all. I simply believe that human beings are of one "substance" - one cannot extract a consciousness bearing soul from a "physical" body that it "lives inside". I think that spiritual forces are real and that human beings are influenced by them. But its not a situation where spiritual forces interact only with my "soul" part.

Again, I refer not to 'soul' nor 'soul part' at all.

There is nothing conceptually wrong at all with this. I almost think that you believe that the reality of the "flesh" vs "spirit" distinction logically requires that we have one component that reacts to the power of the Spirit and an entirely distinct component that acts in accordance with the "flesh". Is this, in fact, what you believe?

No, that is foreign. It is 'man' who acts and even reacts - in your usage 'wholistic man'.