Amos

No personal religion but just a reasonable explication of the bible that has been studied to death without any positive results.

Amos

Yes he was but as the reborn Joseph he was set free from the yoke of slavery and sin. No law equals no sin and therefore he was without sin. I might add that the law was given to Moses not to stop sin but to convict man of sin in order that his prior nature may be redeemed and that is exactly what happened to Joseph with the rebirth of his first begotton son now called Jesus.

Sin is inherent in human nature but not in the original nature of man. Sin is good but that is another issue.

It was easy for Jesus to die to the bare naked humanity of Joseph.

Very much so because human nature as a second identity was conjectured in Gen.3

Not so because man was created in Gen.1, was formed in Gen.2 and Adam was the name given to the second identity that was created in Gen.3. This second identity that is built upon the faculty of reason subdued the first identity and therefore must die before the first identity can be redeemed.

The formation of this ego awareness is made clear in the no shame/shame positions found in Gen.2 and 3.

Technically speaking man would have been able to die without sin but that would have been a very boring life because the concept sin includes creation, procreation and co-creation.

The bible has a better plan and this allows for our exile and return to Eden but for this to happen one must be born from above first.

The curse is also a blessing because it allows us to color our own heaven while we are in exile (resurrection speaks on this or there would be nothing to re-surrect).

Yes, and this also ends the Thousand Year Reign of the elect.It doesn't matter much who says what and who's ideas we follow because the fact remains that we inherit a soul wherein we are our fathers son and to this soul we will add our own contributions that will become part of our childrens soul for many generations to come. Up to a thousand years of heritage may be contained in our soul and that is why those who are one with their own soul can live in the thousand year reign.

I guess it is also true that our behavior skips one generation so it is probably more true that our childrens children will pay for our sins and reap the benefits of our virtues.

Doctor X

Devilnaut:

Indeed. I am usually interested in the author's motivations and context in his world when approaching a text.

Amos:

Your characterization of the success of biblical criticism remains your error. In order for your interpretation or "explication" to have any relevance and prove "reasonable" it must involve the text and not your imagination.

--J.D.

-DM-

A number of Christians today confuse "soul" and "spirit," and there seems to be some confusion here as well. The two are not one in the same, biblically speaking; whereas both humans and animals possess soul--the breath of life--only humans possess spirit, spirit which allegedly transcends death.

--

In the English translations, "Soul" is derived from the Hebrew word 'nephesh' (H5315); properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental), soul.

It is similar in the case of the Greek. The English "Soul" is derived from psuche (G5590) and means breath, life, soul.

--

In English, "Spirit" is derived from the Hebrew word rauch (H7307). It means breath, wind, spirit. It is used of the Spirit of God, the spirit of life, the spirit of jealousy, the spirit of wisdom, a willing spirit, a faint spirit--that which only applies to man, God, and spirit beings (not animals).

"Spirit" is derived from the Greek pneuma (G4151), which can also mean breath, wind, spirit. But this is the same word that is used for the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, an unclean spirit which a man may possess, the spirit that Jesus talks about when he says that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, the spirit that he yielded up when he died on the cross, etc.

--

Thus it is the spirit which allegedly goes to heaven when one dies, not the soul (even though Christians these days talk about the "immortal soul").

-Don-

Doctor X

-DM-:

So . . . any evidence that the Greeks would have considered a human to possess both spirit and soul--pneuma and psyche--as separate entities?

--J.D.

-DM-

I'm no expert on what the Greeks believed, thus I cannot answer your question. I'll try to find out, however, by asking Richard Carrier; he should know the answer. I'll get back to you in this thread--eventually (it takes awhile to get a response from Richard; he's busy working on his Ph.D.).

My blurb, above, regarding the differentiation between "soul" and "spirit" was what I have in my notes based on what I learned years ago in Bible studies.

--

Here is something more which might provide a further clue as to the meaning of the terms, as well as what the Greeks might have believed. Note the emphasized portion which touches on what the Greeks believed with regard to "soul."

Holman Bible Dictionary says this (in part): "SOUL The vital existence of a human being. The Hebrew word nephesh is a key Old Testament term (755 times) referring to human beings. ... The soul designates the physical life. Vitality in all of its breadth and width of meaning is meant by the soul. The basic meaning of nephesh is throat. ... The soul means the entire human being in its physical life needing food and clothing... The breathing organs and the breath blown out from them also express individual life in animals as well as human beings.... At times, then, soul can be interchanged with life ... and can be identical with blood.... A person does not have a soul. A person is a living soul.... The soul does not, however, represent a divine, immortal, undying part of the human being after death as the Greeks often thought. ... According to the Bible, a human being exists as a whole unit and remains also as a whole person in the hand of God after death. A person is not at any time viewed as a bodiless soul." [Emphasis added.]

--

-Don-

P.S. I realize that this raises questions with regard to my previous post regarding 'soul' and 'spirit'; what I previously posted is what I learned years ago in Bible studies. That may not be a view which is consistent with Christianity in general. I'll try to find out.

CJD

Very generally speaking, Don, your first post encapsulated what is called "trichotomy." Many Christians throughout history have embraced this notion. It is simply: Human Being = Body + Soul + Spirit. Today, it is hard to pinpoint any group that teaches it specifically. For some reason, I associate it with fundy-types.

The majority view, however, has been what is called "dichotomy": Human Being = Body + Soul. This is the view espoused in the Holman quote in your last post.

Mixed in there somewhere is the "Wholistic" view: Human Being is "simple," i.e., without parts. At times it sounds little different than the "dichotomous" view. But it often stems from a committment to some type of monism or another (which is not a majority view).

Interestingly, those who hold to the dichotomy view are likely to hold to some form of an intermediate state before the bodily resurrection (see the post on Wright). The finer details are rarely articulated in responsible circles, because the finer details are not disclosed in the ancient text. While "immortality of the soul" is an unfortunate Platonic intrusion (IMO), eschewing such language does not entail eschewing belief in an intermediate state.

Further, those who hold the "Wholistic" view might also tend toward monism and therefore they might also tend toward "soul-sleep" after death, where the redeemed human being simply is not between the time of physical death and bodily resurrection. For this reason, These folks might also tend toward "conditional immortality" or "annihilationism."

In biblical terms, I do not think a sharp distinction can be made between a human's "soul" and "spirit." Also, I think when taken together, the Scriptures support the dichotomous or wholistic views the best (which one I am not sure as of yet).

Regards,

CJD

Devilnaut

"Indeed. I am usually interested in the author's motivations and context in his world when approaching a text."

I see that you're trying for one-upmanship here but forget that for a second and think about what you are trying to learn from the bible, and why you are unable to learn from folks like Amos.

Doctor X

You see unclearly. Perhaps you look through a glass darkly?

when "folks like Amos" commence discussing the texts rather than their beliefs, I may, indeed, learn something from them about the texts. Until then, I really need no further experience in eisegesis.

--J.D.

Devilnaut

If you've found a way to interpret something without using your own ideas perhaps you should write your own bible about it?