What is soul and what is spirit?

[Free]

The illustration of Lazarus and the Rich Man is just that, an illustration

And something which I have continually pointed out with this passage, and to which I have yet to receive a satisfactory rebuttal, is that in every illustration, every parable, Jesus used situations and contexts which were familiar to his readers--there was no make-believe.

And as for Jesus being God, Jesus himself said that he was God's "only-begotten Son".(John 3:16) And that upon his "resurrection from the dead", he told Mary that he was "ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".(John 20:17)

That's for another topic, of which there are plenty buried down in the forum somewhere. I won't debate it here but I will say that you have only presented half of the evidence, hence the erroneous conclusion.

his "death" on the torture stake

It was a Roman cross and history backs this up.

As a result, these never examined the scriptures closely, but rather continued to mix Greek philosophy in with watered down Judaism, and in turn taught the immortality of the soul.

I've stated at least once in this thread the fallacy of this argument--just because an idea or philosophy is not of Christian origin doesn't make it false. All truth is God's truth. And I am quite certain that if one actually studied, one could find other Hellenistic influence in the NT regarding doctrine that most here agree with.

The soul is thus not immortal, but can be "destroyed",(Matt 10:28)

And as I have pointed out several times in these forums, man can destroy the body but not the soul. Everyone who argues against an immortal soul ignores the first part of the verse and I cannot figure out why.

Moses, just before his death

What about Moses after his death?

Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.

And then there is the case of Saul and Samuel.

 

[Vic C.]

And something which I have continually pointed out with this passage, and to which I have yet to receive a satisfactory rebuttal, is that in every illustration, every parable, Jesus used situations and contexts which were familiar to his readers--there was no make-believe.

I have to agree with Free. Jesus did use a story that was very familiar to them. He adopted it from their very own Babylonian Talmud. 8-)

 

[one_lost_coin]

Hi Lost coin,
The Hebrews had no concept of an immortal soul.

Actually I have just now gone to webpages from orthodox jewish rabbis on this matter and guess what they do believe that the soul is immortal as testified to in their Sacred Scriptures. I have got to figure they understand there language, history, and beliefs better than you.

Basic biblical belief is that man does not have a soul, but is a soul.
Genesis 2:7... and man became a living soul

It would benefit you to use more modern english translations. RSV Genesis Chapter 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. This is the same understanding of the human being as those who did the King James translation. Is it possible that they used the word soul in a different sense and from a diffrent usage as you are? One should factor in a words usage at the time it was being used. They also used the word "worship" differently back then as well as "lord" as well as many others. Lets let St. Iranaeus how the translation of the verse you quote is properly interpreted.

Irenaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD]
Adversus Haereses (Book V, Chapter 7)
And again to the Romans he says, "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." What, then, are mortal bodies? Can they be souls? Nay, for souls are incorporeal when put in comparison with mortal bodies; for God "breathed into the face of man the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Now the breath of life is an incorporeal thing. And certainly they cannot maintain that the very breath of life is mortal. Therefore David says, "My soul also shall live to Him," just as if its substance were immortal. Neither, on the other hand, can they say that the spirit is the mortal body. What therefore is there left to which we may apply the term "mortal body," unless it be the thing that was moulded, that is, the flesh, of which it is also said that God will vivify it?

This has been the Christian teaching for 2000 years and it is the correct one. "third is that as man is not a soul, man is a soul and body. In other words, the body belongs essentially and not accidentally to the personality of man." this is biblical and is the Churches teaching which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. That is also biblical.

http://www.drhoff.com/Writings/writings.htm

I did read it. If I wanted to know what a Jewish understanding of anything is I would ask a Jew.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia "In rabbinical literature the dualism of body and soul is carried out consistently, as in Ber. 10a, 43b; Shab. 113b, 152b; Yoma 30b; Ned. 32a (the body is a small city); Sanh. 91a, 108 (the body is a scabbard), 110b; and elsewhere. "The soul of man comes from heaven; his body, from earth" (Sifre, Deut. 306 [ed. Friedmann, p. 132, below]).

To read the whole developement of Hebrew understanding of soul the link to the whole article from the Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=S read the whole thing not just the parts you like.

So lets recap. There was an understanding of Immortal Soul and man consisting of body and soul in the Jewish culture before Jesus in the entire existence of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit after Jesus and even Jesus said "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt 10:28 ESV.
but not by you.

 

[Vic C.]

Jewishencyclopedia.com is a decent site. I refer to it often.

Gee, I don't want to do this Coin, but I have to be honest:

The first paragraph of the article does your post some injustice and your last statement is contradictory. Now please people, I'm not trying to blow away the belief of an immortal soul at all; I am just evaluating all the evidence pro and con.

Here's the first paragraph:

Biblical and Apocryphal Views.

The Mosaic account of the creation of man speaks of a spirit or breath with which he was endowed by his Creator (Gen. ii. 7); but this spirit was conceived of as inseparably connected, if not wholly identified, with the life-blood (ib. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11). Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism and find its expression in the later Biblical books, as, for instance, in the following passages: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov. xx. 27); "There is a spirit in man" (Job xxxii. 8); "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. xii. 7). The soul is called in Biblical literature "ruaḥ," "nefesh," and "neshamah." The first of these terms denotes the spirit in its primitive state; the second, in its association with the body; the third, in its activity while in the body.

Heh, even the jewishencyclopedia differentiates between the Bible and the Apocrypha.

It goes on to state some of Philo's views.

Philo's Views.

There are no direct references in the Bible to theorigin of the soul, its nature, and its relation to the body; but these questions afforded material for the speculations of the Alexandrian Jewish school, especially of Philo Judæus, who sought in the allegorical interpretation of Biblical texts the confirmation of his psychological system.

His views were dependent on Alexandrian and Platonic philosophies, with a little allegoric interpretations thrown in.

This troubles me. :-? What else also troubles me is how many take things that should be allegorical or metaphorical and make it literal (John 6).

Oops, off topic, sorry. :

Your last statement is something I brought up earlier. You said "There was an understanding of Immortal Soul..." but then you quote the one verse that completely negates that statement.

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt 10:28 ESV.

Someone or something that is immortal cannot be destroyed. Am I thinking correctly here?

 

[one_lost_coin]

Jewishencyclopedia.com is a decent site. I refer to it often.

Gee, I don't want to do this Coin, but I have to be honest:

The first paragraph of the article does your post some injustice and your last statement is contradictory. Now please people, I'm not trying to blow away the belief of an immortal soul at all; I am just evaluating all the evidence pro and con.

This troubles me. :-? What else also troubles me is how many take things that should be allegorical or metaphorical and make it literal (John 6).

Oops, off topic, sorry. :

Your last statement is something I brought up earlier. You said "There was an understanding of Immortal Soul..." but then you quote the one verse that completely negates that statement.

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt 10:28 ESV.

Someone or something that is immortal cannot be destroyed. Am I thinking correctly here?

Yes that is correct the encyclopedia does present a progressive revealation of the concept of soul. That is why I asked CP_Mike to read all of it. That the Greeks may have had a contribution to its developement, so what. Magi worshipped Jesus at bethlehem, the Romans contributed to the Crucifixtion, what's the point. That developement is reflected in Scripture and it is not wrong nor is the creation story in Genesis wrong which clearly depicts man body made from the earth and his spirit breathed into him by God. They may not have had an understanding of what they were writting but its all in there.

Here are some other Scriptural Truths that are a part of progressive revelation. The revealation of God's Name to Moses, The Ten Commandments, The name Jesus was not known to anyone in the OT, the Holy Spirit, The revelation of God as Trinity. Nothing can be understood until God reveals it.

That Jesus speaks of man as consisting of body and soul makes it the infallable interpretation through which we are to see and interpret the entire rest of Scripture. That the statement has two parts and that the parts have two different results makes a clear distinction of body and soul. First case man can only hurt the body and in the second nothing escapes from God.

Destroy body and soul in hell. Glad you asked and I knew somebody would. It is a good question and an easy question to answer. Destroy is used in an eternal sense here to those who reject Jesus offer both body and soul will spend eternity in hell not 5 mins. until they are charbroiled and nonexistant because that is not possible, but eternity being destroyed. That kind of judgement does not reside in man who can only kill the body and not the soul. In addition to pointing out how serious eternal seperation from God is over temporal suffering. Jesus does make it clear that the body will see corruption while the soul does not (the other use of corruption) and that the essence of man is body and soul. The soul is entirely in God's hands man cannot touch it.

 

[one_lost_coin]

I think Tertullian did a good job handling this verse. I provide it here I hope it helps. There is actually a considerable amount of commentary on this verse a many sources. They all treat it the same.

Tertullian [160-240 AD]
On the Resurrection of the Flesh
But He also teaches us, that "He is rather to be feared, who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell," that is, the Lord alone; "not those which kill the body, but are not able to hurt the soul," that is to say, all bureau powers. Here, then, we have a recognition of the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men; and of the mortality of the body, which may be killed: whence we learn that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection of the flesh; for unless it were raised again, it would be impossible for the flesh to be "killed in hell." But as a question may be here captiously raised about the meaning of "the body" (or "the flesh "), I will at once state that I understand by the human body nothing else than that fabric of the flesh which, whatever be the kind of material of which it is constructed and modified, is seen and handled, and sometimes indeed killed, by men. In like manner, I should not admit that anything but cement and stones and bricks form the body of a wall. If any one imports into our argument some body of a subtle, secret nature, he must show, disclose, and prove to me that identical body is the very one which was slain by human violence, and then (I will grant) that it is of such a body that (our scripture) speaks. If, again, the body or corporeal nature of the soul is cast in my teeth. it will only be an idle subterfuge! For since both substances are set before us (in this passage, which affirms) that "body and soul" are destroyed in bell, a distinction is obviously made between the two; and we are left to understand the body to be that which is tangible to us, that is, the flesh, which, as it will be destroyed in hell--since it did not "rather fear" being destroyed by God--so also will it be restored to life eternal, since it preferred to be killed by human hands. If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment that the fire of hell is eternal--expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending "killing" is more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal. He will then come to the conclusion that substances must be eternal, when their penal "killing" is an eternal one. Since, then, the body after the resurrection has to be killed by God in hell along with the soul, we surely have sufficient information in this fact respecting both the issues which await it, namely the resurrection of the flesh, and its eternal "killing." Else it would be most absurd if the flesh should be raised up and destined to "the killing in hell," in order to be put an end to, when it might suffer such an annihilation (more directly) if not raised again at all. A pretty paradox, to be sure, that an essence must be refitted with life, in order that it may receive that annihilation which has already in fact accrued to it! But Christ, whilst confirming us in the selfsame hope, adds the example of "the sparrows"--how that "not one of them falls to the ground without the will of God." He says this, that you may believe that the flesh which has been consigned to the ground, is able in like manner to rise again by the will of the same God. For although this is not allowed to the sparrows, yet "we are of more value than many sparrows," for the very reason that, when fallen, we rise again. He affirms, lastly, that "the very hairs of our head are all numbered," and ir the affirmation He of course includes the promise of their safety; for if they were to be lost, where would be the use of having taken such a numerical care of them? Surely the only use lies (in this truth): "That of all which the Father hath given to me, I should lose none,"--not even a hair, as also not an eye nor a tooth. And yet whence shall come that at that time when the body shall be slain in hell, and thrust out into that outer darkness which shall be the suitable torment of the eyes. He also who shall not be clothed at the marriage feast in the raiment of good works, will have to be " bound hand and foot,"--as being, of course, raised in his body. So, again, the very reclining at the feast in the kingdom of God, and sitting on Christ's thrones, and standing at last on His right hand and His left, and eating of the tree of life: what are all these but most certain proofs of a bodily appointment and destination?

 

[francisdesales]

Jewishencyclopedia.com is a decent site. I refer to it often.

I'd be really careful there, Vic. Judaism of Jesus' day no longer exists, nor has it existed since 70 AD. What you get from the "Jewish" encyclopedia now is the "Judaism" that followed after Christianity had already established itself, and was naturally in contention with it as "Judaism" struggled for its very existence in new form that relyed on the synagogue and Torah (vs Temple and cult, as in Jesus' day). The Midrash is not the same Judaism as Jesus' or the Apostles' day.

Regards

 

[CP_Mike]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=S[/url] read the whole thing not just the parts you like.

So lets recap. There was an understanding of Immortal Soul and man consisting of body and soul in the Jewish culture before Jesus in the entire existence of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit after Jesus and even Jesus said "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt 10:28 ESV.
but not by you.[/quote:1hy6l42a]

To understand Matthew 10:28 in the light of the Old Testament, one cannot use this definition as you are emphasising a view quoting scripture against scripture. What Jesus was promising his disciples was that if they get martyred on account of his name, rrather than have a shadowy existence in Sheol as 'Rephaim', (see Job 3 and Psalm 88: 8-10), they would be resuurected intact.

 

[Vic C.]

Off topic sidebar

Understood Joe, though it does contain more historical references than most other sources available:

Contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906 by Funk and Wagnalls. It contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations on the history, religion, literature, and customs of the Jewish people. Also available in print.

http://www.nla.gov.au/pathways/jnls/new ... /1236.html

Ooh, look at this, a scanned copy of "A Guide to the Jewish Encyclopedia" dating back to 1908. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id= ... lt#PPP2,M1

Also, what you said about first century Judaism can be also said about first century Christianity as well. ;-)

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Off topic sidebar

Also, what you said about first century Judaism can be also said about first century Christianity as well. ;-)

HA HA... Jokes on Friday! How nice.

Regards

 

[one_lost_coin]

http://podictionary.com/[/url] the transformation of word usages can be very shocking at times. I think you may enjoy it.

 

[Paidion]

All it means is that when we die our brains no longer function---get it?

It certainly means that, all right.

But if the personality is "housed within the soul" as you say, and goes to heaven or hell at death, then why could the Psalmist not continue to "remember" God and praise him after his "personality" had departed to heaven?

Because the psalmist was considering the grave only--Sheol.

Well... the fact that the psalmist was considering the grave only, suggests that he believed in nothing beyond the grave---- until the resurrection.

 

[Paidion]

(2) second is that the soul is not man (ST 1:75: 4). Even in the common speech of the people, that quarry of sound thinking, man is not said to be a soul but to have a soul.

Okay, let's assume (contrary to Gen 2:7) that you are right, that man has a soul rather than is a soul. Jesus gave a parable about a rich man who was laying up treasure for his old age, but did not know he would die that night. At one point the following is recorded:

And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' Luke 12:19

How could the rich man talk to his soul? Who did the talking? If his soul was the real person who went to heaven or hell after he died, what happened, after death, to the person who was talking to his soul?

 

[Gabe]

If 'soul' means 'body' then someone who talks to himself would not normally address himself as 'body' you would simply say 'I have ample goods laid up for many years'
Maybe this was not meant to be taken literally as someone speaking to their soul as this is a part of a Parable. If it was meant literally, then that would be assuming we are all two separate people akin to the Trinity. In a less literal sense it could be his physical body talking to his non-physical soul.

God also says in this parable 'this night thy soul shall be required of thee' in a literal sense, why would God require his physical body that night? When people die at present their body remains in the grave (I believe til the physical resurrection) so I would assume He requires a non-physical 'soul'.

 

[CP_Mike]

if 'soul' means 'body' then someone who talks to himself would not normaly address himself as 'body' you would simply say 'i have ample goods laid up for many years'
Maybe this was not meant to be taken literally as someone speaking to their soul as this is a part of a Parable. If it was meant literally, then that would be assuming we are all two seperate people akin to the Trinity. In a less literal sense it could be his physical body talking to his non-physical soul.

God also says in this parable 'this night thy soul shall be required of thee' in a literal sense, why would God require his physical body that night? When people die at present their body remains in the grave (i believe til the physical ressurection) so i would assume He requires a non-physical 'soul'.

Hi Gabriel,
In this context, 'soul' means 'me' as the whole person as if the speaker was talking to himself. The Hebrews had no word for the whole and 'nephesh' was often used EG EZ 18:4.

When God said 'your soul would be required of you', here, it should be translated more correctly as 'life' as 'soul' in the bible means 'life'.

When people die, they are no longer 'nephesh'., but 'Rephaim' (Psalm 88:10-12, Job 3.)
Death is not extinction, but there is no reference to 'nephesh' outside the body as an immaterial substance.

 

[one_lost_coin]

(2) second is that the soul is not man (ST 1:75: 4). Even in the common speech of the people, that quarry of sound thinking, man is not said to be a soul but to have a soul.

Okay, let's assume (contrary to Gen 2:7) that you are right, that man has a soul rather than is a soul. Jesus gave a parable about a rich man who was laying up treasure for his old age, but did not know he would die that night. At one point the following is recorded:

And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' Luke 12:19

Contrary to Genesis 2:7 you say.

Two accounts of his origin are given in the Old Testament. On the sixth and last day of the creation "God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him" (Genesis 1:27); and "the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul" (Gem, ii, 7; so Ecclus., xvii, 1: "God created man of the earth, and made him after his own image"). By these texts the special creation of man is established, his high dignity and his spiritual nature. As to his material part, the Scripture declares that it is formed by God from the "slime of the earth". This becomes a "living soul" and fashioned to the "image of God" by the inspiration of the "breath of life", which makes man man and differentiates him from the brute.

As for Luke 12:19. Seems amply addressed by the those who posted above.

RSV Luke Chapter 12:33: Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

 

[one_lost_coin]

How could the rich man talk to his soul? Who did the talking? If his soul was the real person who went to heaven or hell after he died, what happened, after death, to the person who was talking to his soul?

I assume this question is directed to CP_Mike because I don't see how it could be applied to me.

but since it gives me an oppurtunity to maybe clarify some things mentioned above. I provide the following.

Man is one in essence... A similar confusion of expression may be noticed in the statement that man is a "compound of body and soul". This is misleading. Man is not a body plus a soul  which would make of him two individuals; but a body that is what it is (namely, a human body) by reason of its union with the soul...In the case of man, though the "soul" be proved a reality capable of separate existence, the "body" can in no sense be called a substance in its own right. It exists only as determined by a form; and if that form is not a human soul, then the "body" is not a human body. It is in this sense that the Scholastic phrase "incomplete substance", applied to body and soul alike, is to be understood. Though strictly speaking self-contradictory, the phrase expresses in a convenient form the abiding reciprocity of relation between these two "principles of substantial being".

basically a the fullest answer to your question is here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

 

[CP_Mike]

How could the rich man talk to his soul? Who did the talking? If his soul was the real person who went to heaven or hell after he died, what happened, after death, to the person who was talking to his soul?

I assume this question is directed to CP_Mike because I don't see how it could be applied to me.

but since it gives me an oppurtunity to maybe clarify some things mentioned above. I provide the following.

Man is one in essence... A similar confusion of expression may be noticed in the statement that man is a "compound of body and soul". This is misleading. Man is not a body plus a soul  which would make of him two individuals; but a body that is what it is (namely, a human body) by reason of its union with the soul...In the case of man, though the "soul" be proved a reality capable of separate existence, the "body" can in no sense be called a substance in its own right. It exists only as determined by a form; and if that form is not a human soul, then the "body" is not a human body. It is in this sense that the Scholastic phrase "incomplete substance", applied to body and soul alike, is to be understood. Though strictly speaking self-contradictory, the phrase expresses in a convenient form the abiding reciprocity of relation between these two "principles of substantial being".

basically a the fullest answer to your question is here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

With one notable exception! There is no concept of 'soul' surviving outside the body.

Dt 12:23
Lev 17:11

 

[Terry Lu]

We are spirit being; we born with our spirit but not our soul. And we need to purify our soul throughout our lives. Our soul has more to do with our mental states and out thoughts, wills, and emotions.